Chatlog 2009-03-04

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, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, Michael_Schneider (muted), Elisa_Kendall, christine
17:54:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:54:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc
17:54:50 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.03.04/Agenda
17:55:03 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:55:03 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
17:55:15 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
17:55:28 <IanH> ScribeNick: Uli
17:55:39 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl
17:56:06 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:56:31 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl
17:56:31 <Zakim> ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
17:56:38 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
17:56:45 <Zakim> +Alistair
17:57:08 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:57:35 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
17:58:06 <Zakim> +Alistair.a
17:58:26 <Zakim> -Alistair.a
17:58:34 <bmotik> Zakim, who is on call
17:58:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on call', bmotik
17:58:42 <bmotik> ZAkim, who is on call?
17:58:42 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, bmotik.
17:58:52 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:59:01 <Zakim> +Alistair.a
17:59:11 <Zakim> -Alistair
17:59:12 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, +Alistair.a is bcuencagrau
17:59:12 <Zakim> sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not recognize a party named '+Alistair.a'
17:59:32 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, Alistair.a is bcuencagrau
17:59:32 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:59:34 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau.a
17:59:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:59:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, bcuencagrau.a
17:59:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
17:59:38 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:59:38 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:59:43 <bmotik> Zakim, bcuencagrau.a is me
17:59:43 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:59:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:59:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:00:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
18:00:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
18:00:04 <Zakim> +Ivan
18:00:23 <Zakim> +IanH
18:00:30 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:00:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH
18:00:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:00:37 <uli> uli has joined #owl
18:00:40 <uli_> uli_ has joined #owl
18:00:50 <IanH> Evening all!
18:00:56 <uli> hiho
18:01:17 <IanH> In the civilised world.
18:01:23 <IanH> Uli: you are scribing?
18:01:29 <uli> yes i am
18:01:40 <pfps> scribenick uli
18:01:51 <uli> but i am still dialing
18:02:02 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl
18:02:02 <Zakim> +??P8
18:02:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:02:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, ??P8
18:02:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:02:08 <uli> zakim, ??P8 is me
18:02:08 <Zakim> +uli; got it
18:02:18 <uli> regrets from Bijan
18:02:19 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
18:02:24 <uli> he is off sick
18:02:48 <Zakim> +??P4
18:03:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, ??P4
18:03:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:11 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
18:03:15 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:03:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_
18:03:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:25 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
18:03:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me
18:03:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
18:03:33 <pfps> some things to stick into topics later
18:03:41 <Zakim> +Zhe
18:03:46 <uli> IanH: Agenda amendments?
18:03:52 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:03:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan (muted), IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe
18:03:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:03:58 <pfps> q+
18:04:03 <Zakim> +msmith
18:04:05 <IanH> ack pfps
18:04:28 <uli> pfps: I miss status of actions & documents 
18:04:40 <uli> pfps: not actions, issues
18:04:50 <Zakim> +Sandro
18:04:58 <Zakim> +??P16
18:05:09 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
18:05:24 <zimmer> Zakim, ??P16 is me
18:05:24 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
18:05:44 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
18:06:01 <uli> IanH: there is one action left on the open issue on Alan
18:06:09 <Zakim> +[IBM]
18:06:30 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
18:06:30 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
18:06:48 <IanH> q?
18:06:52 <uli> IanH: we will come back to this after admin stuff
18:07:02 <pfps> 18 Feb OK
18:07:07 <uli> IanH: previous minutes?
18:07:20 <uli> PROPOSED: accept Feb 18's minutes
18:07:29 <pfps> 23 Feb minimally OK
18:07:32 <uli> RESOLVED: accept Feb 18's minutes
18:07:34 <pfps> 24 Feb has a problem
18:07:58 <uli> pfps: 24s isn't finished yet
18:08:54 <pfps> otherwise minimally acceptable
18:09:06 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
18:09:08 <uli> IanH: 24s are acceptable modula minor cleanup?
18:09:29 <uli> RESOLVED: accept minutes from F2F modulo minor clean-up
18:09:33 <pfps> q+
18:09:43 <IanH> q?
18:09:49 <IanH> ack pfps
18:09:50 <uli> IanH: Action item status
18:10:07 <schneid> hi, i did not yet find the time to edit my scribe job at F2F
18:10:55 <uli> IanH: we need to check answer to LC 45 (ML2)
18:10:58 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:11:20 <IanH> q?
18:11:20 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:11:21 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
18:11:25 <IanH> q?
18:11:27 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:11:27 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:11:29 <uli> IanH: pending review actions are all trivial?
18:11:37 <uli> pfps: action 298
18:11:57 <uli> pfps: response lack diffs
18:12:11 <ewallace> I don't see anything in the action page for ACTION-298
18:12:17 <uli> IanH: will point to a section of a document 
18:12:49 <uli> IanH: ok, then all pending review action are deemed to be completed 
18:12:54 <bmotik> I haven't
18:13:03 <bmotik> I'll do this now as I go trhoguh the spec
18:13:07 <uli> IanH:  Boris, did you find examples for 270?
18:13:11 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:13:11 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:13:13 <bmotik> q+
18:13:15 <msmith> regarding ACTION-283, a technical barrier that was preventing me from moving forward on the "comment" part has been removed.  I have pushed the due date to Mar 11 and expect to be done by then.
18:13:25 <bmotik> q-
18:13:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:13:29 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:13:33 <uli> IanH: 283 is moved forward
18:13:35 <IanH> q?
18:13:36 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
18:13:36 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
18:13:57 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
18:13:57 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
18:14:02 <uli> bmotik: I will start implementing all these changes from tomorrow
18:14:12 <uli> IanH: Action 292 
18:14:17 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:14:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan (muted), IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid
18:14:20 <Zakim> ... (muted)
18:14:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:14:27 <uli> Sandro: isn't done yet, will go to next week
18:14:39 <uli> IanH: 295 waits for Boris
18:14:47 <christine> christine has joined #owl
18:14:56 <uli> IanH: 301? Jie?
18:15:08 <uli> IanH: 299? Sandro?
18:15:19 <uli> IanH: 299 will be pushed forward as well
18:16:00 <uli> IanH: 300? Alan isn't here - did anybody hear about
18:16:10 <uli> IanH: 300 will be pushed forward as well
18:16:39 <uli> "Responding to XML Schema"
18:16:49 <IanH> q?
18:17:01 <uli> IanH: we concluded that we should write the, "good job, thanks"
18:17:03 <pfps> I'll send out a message saying this shortly.
18:17:29 <uli> IanH: ok, then we ask pfps to complete action 281 in this sense
18:17:38 <pfps> fine
18:17:44 <IanH> PROPOSED: Respond to XML Schema "Good job, thanks!" 
18:17:55 <pfps> +1
18:17:58 <uli> +1
18:17:59 <ivan> +1
18:18:00 <MarkusK_> +1
18:18:00 <IanH> +1
18:18:02 <schneid> +1
18:18:03 <zimmer> +1
18:18:03 <msmith> +1
18:18:04 <ewallace> +1
18:18:07 <Achille> +1
18:18:16 <Zhe> +1
18:18:17 <IanH> RESOLVED: Respond to XML Schema "Good job, thanks!"
18:18:34 <pfps> q+
18:18:41 <IanH> q?
18:19:04 <uli> pfps: I forgot...issue 97 (grrdl) is missing an action
18:19:06 <ivan> q+
18:19:10 <IanH> q?
18:19:34 <pfps> q-
18:19:35 <ivan> ack ivan
18:19:36 <uli> IanH: the solution is still slightly unclear, Ivan is finding out how many transform we can have
18:19:39 <IanH> ack ivan
18:20:00 <pfps> action on Ivan?
18:20:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:20:00 <uli> ivan: i talked to the grrdl people, and i will come up with a proposal soon
18:20:09 <IanH> q?
18:20:16 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:20:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted)
18:20:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:20:39 <uli> ivan: it seems as if we could have several implementation referenced
18:20:44 <pfps> OK
18:21:30 <uli> Subtopic: Issue 146
18:21:38 <ewallace> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/146
18:21:47 <uli> thanks evan
18:21:58 <IanH> q?
18:22:33 <uli> pfps: as a summary of the ongoig discussion, Alan wants to have a new 'entity name' in the Manchester Syntax
18:22:51 <uli> pfps: with a number of unclear points
18:22:55 <IanH> q?
18:22:56 <pfps> I'll take an action to update Manchester syntax without any labels stuff.
18:23:06 <ewallace> Can we summarize that as PFPS finds Alan's proposal underspecified?
18:23:10 <uli> ...regarding as to what happens if...with labels
18:23:12 <ivan> q+
18:23:18 <IanH> q?
18:23:48 <IanH> ack ivan
18:24:21 <uli> Ivan: manchester syntax isn't a rectrack document, so we are free to publish draft or note 
18:24:40 <pfps> I don't want to publish with an EdNote.
18:24:53 <uli> ...so i'd suggest that we don't push back this issue when Alan isn't here
18:25:33 <uli> IanH: would this be ok with pfps?
18:25:39 <pfps> q+
18:25:45 <IanH> ack pfps
18:25:53 <uli> ...i.e., a draft without labels and no ednote
18:26:35 <pfps> OK
18:27:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published at the end of the month; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:27:26 <schneid> q
18:27:32 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:27:32 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:27:38 <IanH> q?
18:28:31 <pfps> end-of-month = with other documents
18:28:41 <sandro> 01 June  - Publish Round 7: All docs; rec-track specs to CR
18:28:46 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:28:46 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:28:57 <sandro> 15 April - Publish Round 6: All documents, specs in Last Call (LC1 or LC2)
18:29:00 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
18:29:41 <IanH> PROPOSED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published as part of round 6 on the 15th April; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:29:49 <pfps> +1
18:29:52 <uli> +1
18:29:58 <ivan> +1
18:30:02 <sandro> +1
18:30:03 <IanH> +1
18:30:07 <ewallace> +1
18:30:07 <Zhe> +1
18:30:15 <msmith> +1
18:30:16 <schneid> +1
18:30:19 <MarkusK_> +1
18:30:21 <sandro> (publication is already planned --- the point here is about issue-146.)
18:30:24 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:30:30 <IanH> RESOLVED: new working draft of Manchester Syntax will be published as part of round 6 on the 15th April; it won't attempt to address issue-146, nor will it include any ed-note referring to this issue
18:30:31 <pfps> It would also be good to get a vote on 146 and close it by Round 6.
18:30:54 <pfps> I'm OK
18:31:22 <uli> Topic: F2F debrief
18:31:41 <uli> IanH: for those who weren't there/didn't read minutes
18:31:57 <uli> ...there are summaries on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5_Summary
18:31:58 <IanH> q?
18:32:19 <uli> ...and please take a look at the revised schedule
18:32:21 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
18:33:09 <uli> ...so we won't finish by the end of April, and hope to be finished by October
18:33:12 <schneid> q+
18:33:15 <IanH> q?
18:33:18 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:33:18 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:33:19 <uli> ...and possibly hang on until the end of the year
18:33:20 <IanH> ack schneid
18:33:54 <uli> schneid: we discussed to have a very short cand-rec phase
18:34:09 <uli> IanH: correct - it's in the timeline page
18:34:25 <IanH> q?
18:34:27 <uli> ...because we already have quite a lot of implementations
18:34:37 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:34:37 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:35:07 <IanH> q?
18:35:08 <uli> IanH: i'd suggest to not spend more time reminiscising 
18:35:49 <uli> Topic: Last Call Comments
18:35:55 <IanH> q?
18:35:58 <pfps> q- :-)
18:36:09 <uli> IanH: for the 'easy' ones, we will send them unless somebody wants to discuss them
18:36:43 <uli> IanH: so we send all answers to those in the list "Responses ready to send " 
18:37:19 <IanH> q?
18:37:20 <uli> IanH: for LC 43a, did anybody look at it?
18:37:43 <pfps> Fine by me :-)
18:37:46 <IanH> q?
18:37:50 <uli> ...I did and it seems fine
18:37:55 <Zhe> yes
18:38:07 <uli> IanH: did you see the response?
18:38:09 <schneid> a few of them came in today, and I hadn't time to look at them yet
18:38:15 <uli> Zhe: looks ok to me
18:38:31 <pfps> I'll put togther one message
18:38:32 <uli> IanH: so, we send LC 43a
18:38:47 <uli> IanH: LC 46
18:38:49 <ewallace> This response looks good to me.
18:38:53 <msmith> looks good to me
18:39:00 <pfps> ship it
18:39:10 <uli> IanH: LC 46 is good to go
18:39:23 <uli> IanH: LC 53
18:39:32 <IanH> q?
18:39:41 <pfps> 53
18:39:42 <schneid> 53 is fine by me :-)
18:40:04 <pfps> OKed by commenter already
18:40:10 <schneid> yes
18:40:14 <uli> IanH: we already basically ok-ed it at F2F
18:40:24 <uli> IanH: LC 53 is good to go
18:40:25 <pfps> OK
18:40:32 <uli> IanH: LC 61
18:40:36 <pfps> 61 needs the pointer to the changed section(s)
18:40:52 <pfps> otherwise OK to go
18:40:59 <uli> IanH: it needs a pointer to changed sections
18:41:00 <msmith> good with those changes
18:41:12 <uli> IanH: I will fix LC 61 and send it 
18:41:15 <schneid> ok
18:41:29 <uli> IanH: LC 10
18:41:36 <IanH> q?
18:41:53 <IanH> q?
18:41:58 <uli> ...intro needs fixing since unclear whether OWL 1 should be mentioned there
18:42:03 <pfps> q+
18:42:07 <IanH> q?
18:42:07 <uli> ...this is related to the 'overview'
18:42:18 <uli> pfps: intro or abstract
18:42:32 <pfps> q+
18:42:38 <IanH> q?
18:42:44 <uli> IanH: new abstract plus roadmap could go into the intro of every document
18:42:51 <pfps> q+ to say where to go
18:42:58 <IanH> ack pfps
18:42:58 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say where to go
18:43:17 <uli> pfps: it could go into 'status of document set' part of the whole lot
18:43:26 <ewallace> Which would go into status ...?
18:43:30 <IanH> q?
18:43:43 <pfps> q+
18:43:53 <IanH> q?
18:43:56 <pfps> q-
18:44:07 <pfps> q-
18:44:11 <uli> Sandro:  don't think this would be a good idea, the roadmap gets quite big 
18:44:27 <pfps> q+
18:44:30 <uli> IanH: yes, it looks strange next to copyright and should go after table of contents
18:44:32 <IanH> ack pfps
18:44:57 <uli> pfps: then we shouldn't do this because it's big and bulky and we *have* the document overview
18:45:03 <christine> what topic of agenda is discussed?
18:45:12 <uli> LC 10
18:45:34 <IanH> q?
18:45:39 <schneid> Christine, new generic abstract to all our documents
18:45:56 <uli> IanH: this doesn't seem to be optimal
18:46:01 <IanH> q?
18:46:02 <pfps> like what?
18:46:04 <ewallace> +q
18:46:14 <uli> ...ideally, we should something at the beginning of intro like the roadmap
18:46:27 <IanH> q?
18:46:28 <uli> ...which isn't too bulky
18:46:33 <IanH> ack ewallace
18:46:45 <sandro> q+
18:46:49 <uli> ewallace: why would we stick the roadmap into all documents?
18:47:07 <uli> IanH: we try to avoid confusing people who start with reading the wrong document
18:47:17 <IanH> q?
18:47:31 <IanH> q?
18:47:35 <IanH> ack sandro
18:48:18 <uli> Sandro: we should always make clear (in abstract, intro) in each document that it's a part of a set and *which*
18:48:32 <IanH> q?
18:48:38 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
18:48:41 <uli> IanH: you want "title...part x'
18:48:50 <IanH> q?
18:48:56 <pfps> I'm looking at DIrect Semantics - something like "This document is part of the OWL 2 recommendation.  It formally defines the ....  For an introduction to the OWL 2 recommendation, see the Document Overview.
18:49:13 <uli> Sandro: yes, add something thoughtful to all intros
18:49:42 <pfps> q+
18:49:51 <pfps> q-
18:49:54 <uli> IanH: we should add to whom the document is aimed at 
18:49:54 <IanH> q?
18:50:47 <pfps> q+
18:50:56 <IanH> q?
18:51:02 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
18:51:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted)
18:51:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see elisa, christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:51:10 <uli> IanH: so, what about a part of the  intro of each doc that tells them for whom the doc is intended and what it does 
18:51:24 <IanH> q?
18:51:25 <pfps> a less-formal document could be more user-friendly :-)
18:51:29 <pfps> q-
18:51:30 <IanH> ack pfps
18:51:33 <uli> IanH: (reads pfps' above suggestion and deems it adequate)
18:52:04 <schneid> where should it be now?
18:52:37 <uli> Action on all editor to add such a 'uniform' passage to the intro of their intros 
18:52:37 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
18:52:40 <pfps> q+
18:53:02 <IanH> q?
18:53:05 <IanH> ack pfps
18:53:12 <uli> pfps: i suggest 1. sentence in each intro 'this doc is about' 2. sentence 'for an intro, go ...'
18:53:15 <schneid> q+
18:53:22 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:53:22 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:53:23 <ivan> q+
18:53:27 <uli> Sandro: this is adequate
18:53:29 <IanH> ack schneid
18:53:33 <ewallace> If we do more, it won't be uniform.
18:53:35 <uli> we could also link to the roadmap?
18:53:54 <uli> schneid: sees a lot of text before intro
18:54:15 <pfps> there is proposed text for abstract in the "response" for 10
18:54:22 <uli> Sandro: do we continue to have 2 part abstract - 1 for OWL 2, 1 for this document
18:54:30 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:54:30 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid
18:54:34 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:54:34 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:54:42 <uli> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
18:54:45 <IanH> q?
18:54:52 <IanH> ack ivan
18:54:53 <pfps> no pointer to Doc Overview yet
18:55:12 <uli> ivan: we can't take a final  decision now
18:55:21 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
18:55:31 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:55:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted),
18:55:34 <Zakim> ... Elisa_Kendall
18:55:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see elisa, christine, schneid, Achille, msmith, Zhe, MarkusK_, ewallace, uli_, uli, pfps, bcuencagrau, bmotik, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, sandro, trackbot
18:56:10 <uli> IanH: we add, in the preamble to the abstract of each document, a pointer to the overview
18:56:20 <IanH> q?
18:56:26 <uli> ...even if we loose some uniformity
18:56:47 <pfps> q+
18:56:59 <ivan> q+
18:57:06 <IanH> ack pfps
18:57:22 <uli_> Sandro: the preamble in LC 10 answer is too long
18:57:37 <uli_> pfps: i'd happily drop the 2. paragraph
18:57:48 <ivan> q-
18:57:55 <IanH> q?
18:58:12 <IanH> q?
18:58:20 <ivan> q+
18:58:22 <IanH> q?
18:58:25 <IanH> ack ivan
18:58:58 <pfps> fine by me
18:58:58 <IanH> q?
18:59:05 <uli_> Ivan: the first paragraph is finte, the second one too long
18:59:35 <IanH> q?
18:59:37 <uli_> IanH: ok, so we agree to drop second paragr. and do some word smithing on the first one?
18:59:39 <ewallace> Can we capture this consensus?
19:00:07 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2
19:00:14 <pfps> +1
19:00:57 <IanH> PROPOSED: Substitute common first para of abstract with the first para from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 (modulo wordsmithing)
19:01:01 <pfps> The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide the basic ontological categories of classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves can be written...
19:01:03 <pfps> ...and exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2. 
19:01:07 <ewallace> Yes
19:01:07 <pfps> +1
19:01:10 <Achille> +1
19:01:11 <ivan> +1
19:01:12 <ewallace> +1
19:01:12 <IanH> +1
19:01:13 <MarkusK_> +1
19:01:14 <bcuencagrau> +1
19:01:14 <zimmer> +1
19:01:15 <uli_> +1
19:01:17 <Zhe> +1
19:01:25 <elisa> +1
19:01:31 <IanH> RESOLVED: ROPOSED: Substitute common first para of abstract with the first para from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH2 (modulo wordsmithing)
19:01:32 <msmith> +1
19:01:39 <IanH> q?
19:02:03 <uli_> IanH: ..and we also answer to Ivan's LCC
19:02:10 <pfps> I'll send the message
19:02:18 <IanH> q?
19:02:33 <uli_> IanH: LC 21
19:02:47 <pfps> 21
19:03:35 <pfps> 21 needs some more work
19:03:38 <IanH> q?
19:03:41 <uli_> IanH: mostly editorial?
19:03:58 <IanH> q?
19:03:59 <uli_> q+
19:04:03 <IanH> q?
19:04:14 <pfps> also needs to wait for disjointness of datatypes decision
19:04:24 <IanH> q?
19:04:29 <IanH> ack uli_
19:04:47 <pfps> there are reasons to leave out reflexive and thing - 
19:04:47 <msmith> q+ about datatypes
19:04:53 <IanH> q?
19:04:59 <uli_> IanH: non-editorial is reflexive properties in RL
19:05:04 <IanH> ack about
19:05:08 <IanH> ack datatypes
19:05:13 <IanH> q?
19:05:26 <uli_> msmith: and datatypes/disjointness needs answering 
19:05:34 <pfps> this should be part of the discussion and vote next week
19:05:37 <IanH> q?
19:05:40 <bmotik> q+
19:05:43 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:05:43 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:05:45 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:05:53 <pfps> q+
19:05:57 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:05:57 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:06:01 <IanH> ack pfps
19:06:18 <uli_> bmotik: we discussed this and decided to not have reflexive in RL
19:06:38 <IanH> q?
19:06:52 <bmotik> I'll rephrase that
19:06:55 <uli_> pfps: we don't want reflexive in RL because they lead to free variables on the RHS of a rule
19:07:01 <IanH> q?
19:07:01 <bmotik> Yes
19:07:29 <bmotik> These are the ones in the first box from the appendix of Syntax
19:07:46 <uli_> pfps: so Boris is already understanding & drafting answer
19:07:53 <uli_> IanH: LC 32
19:08:48 <IanH> q?
19:08:59 <uli_> pfps: i need to change the doc & then add diffs to response. but we need to decide that this is our response
19:09:10 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/CO1
19:09:15 <uli_> IanH: is Ivan happy with this?
19:09:40 <uli_> IanH: LC 58
19:10:11 <IanH> q?
19:10:14 <bmotik> The response is already there
19:10:19 <uli_> IanH: it's on its way to being done, in the sense 'thanks, we will do it'
19:10:20 <christine> fix what
19:10:21 <schneid> q+
19:10:24 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:10:24 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:10:25 <bmotik> I'll make the changes tomorrow
19:10:25 <IanH> q?
19:10:40 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:10:40 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:10:46 <bmotik> q+
19:10:50 <uli_> schneid: would it still be possible to declare classes? allowed?
19:10:51 <pfps> yes
19:10:51 <IanH> Boris will fix the syntax to be strongly typed
19:10:55 <IanH> ack schneid
19:10:58 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:11:02 <IanH> q?
19:11:11 <uli_> bmotik: everything is preserved - in DL you still need declaration
19:11:24 <IanH> q?
19:11:28 <uli_> schneid: thanks
19:11:30 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:11:30 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:11:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:11:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:11:42 <ivan> q+
19:11:42 <uli_> IanH: do we are only for bmotik to make these changes
19:11:43 <christine> still not convinced argument from MH was 2 passes
19:12:00 <IanH> q?
19:12:21 <uli_> IanH: i don't understand Christine's question
19:12:43 <pfps> Zakim, who is on the phone?
19:12:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Ivan, IanH, uli, MarkusK_, Zhe, msmith, Sandro, zimmer, Evan_Wallace, Achille, schneid (muted),
19:12:43 <christine> why not  mandatory declaration for it instead of full
19:12:46 <Zakim> ... Elisa_Kendall
19:13:11 <IanH> q?
19:13:15 <ivan> q-
19:13:25 <IanH> q?
19:13:29 <uli_> IanH: so, peter will send the response
19:13:33 <msmith> q+
19:13:34 <pfps> q+
19:13:54 <ivan> q+
19:14:05 <IanH> q?
19:14:09 <pfps> q-
19:14:09 <IanH> ack msmith
19:14:17 <christine> Peter, OK to what ?
19:14:24 <uli_> msmith: i think christine means to say that our arguments in the email to Matt are sufficient to justifiy the changes 
19:14:40 <pfps> q+
19:14:46 <uli_> ...but we have had other arguments outside those mentioned in the response
19:14:58 <IanH> ack ivan
19:14:58 <ivan> msmisth, ie, what I wrote in  http://www.w3.org/mid/49AEAAF6.5050904@w3.org o.k.
19:14:59 <pfps> q-
19:15:02 <uli_> ...and we might want to document those 
19:15:38 <uli_> ivan: i gave an answer to her just before (linked above)
19:15:51 <bmotik> Not really
19:16:17 <bmotik> ACTION: ianh to Flesh out the resposne to 58
19:16:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - ianh
19:16:18 <uli_> Action in IanH to flesh out response to LC 58
19:16:19 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - in
19:16:23 <bmotik> ACTION: ian to Flesh out the resposne to 58
19:16:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Flesh out the resposne to 58 [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-11].
19:17:13 <uli_> Ianh: now we have only more difficult LCCs left
19:17:53 <uli_> IanH: at F2F, we discussed disjointness of numeric DTs as requested in LC 24
19:18:30 <uli_> ...some people didn't mind this, other did mind (including Zhe and Alan)
19:18:44 <uli_> ...and we decided to discuss it at next week's telecon 
19:18:52 <msmith> q+ to ask about the relation of this to JDB2
19:18:56 <IanH> q?
19:19:01 <IanH> ack msmith
19:19:01 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about the relation of this to JDB2
19:19:53 <IanH> q?
19:20:01 <pfps> q+
19:20:09 <IanH> q?
19:20:10 <bmotik> q+
19:20:14 <IanH> ack pfps
19:20:15 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:20:15 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:20:16 <uli_> msmith: in LC 21, there is another case of questions on disjointness of DTs.  Is the disjointness of Hex... and ..binary related to the disjointness of numerices?
19:20:21 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:20:55 <msmith> Jos commented on hexBinary and base64Binary specifically
19:21:16 <uli_> bmotik: we depart from WXS in more than 1 place (not only disjointness of numerics) - are we treating others similarly?
19:21:19 <IanH> q?
19:21:57 <uli_> IanH: nobody has mentioned dateTime so far. 
19:22:11 <msmith> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JDB2 in the "syntax" paragraph
19:22:20 <IanH> q?
19:22:25 <pfps> yep
19:22:28 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:22:28 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:23:51 <uli_> IanH: LC 28 and 48
19:24:18 <uli_> IanH: who writes to Frank and Guus?
19:24:46 <uli_> Action to write responses to LC 28 and 48 on IanH
19:24:46 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
19:25:11 <bmotik> ACTION: ian to Craft the response to 28 and 48
19:25:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - Craft the response to 28 and 48 [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-03-11].
19:25:25 <pfps> Bijan can respond to himself
19:25:30 <uli_> IanH: LC 40
19:25:47 <uli_> ...I will ask him to respond to himself
19:26:10 <uli_> IanH: 51 and 62
19:26:28 <IanH> q?
19:26:31 <bmotik> q+
19:26:34 <bmotik> Zakim, unmut eme
19:26:34 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmut eme', bmotik
19:26:36 <pfps> amnesia
19:26:37 <IanH> q?
19:26:41 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:26:42 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:26:43 <ewallace> We should have it. IMO
19:26:44 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
19:26:45 <uli_> ...it might be useful to be able to coin names like "over 18" -- we discussed this, but why do we have this?
19:26:46 <IanH> q?
19:27:08 <uli_> bmotik: i think there was never an issue created, and so nothing ever happened
19:27:12 <msmith> +1 to add them
19:27:13 <IanH> q?
19:27:16 <pfps> q+
19:27:17 <uli_> IanH
19:27:17 <ewallace> Address it.
19:27:17 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:27:17 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:27:21 <IanH> ack pfps
19:27:34 <uli_> pfps: let's do it 
19:27:35 <IanH> q?
19:27:38 <bmotik> q+
19:27:42 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
19:27:42 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
19:27:50 <IanH> ack bmotik
19:27:59 <uli_> ...bmotik has mentioned that we only need to make sure that they act like macros and are non-cyclic
19:28:09 <schneid> q+
19:28:14 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
19:28:14 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
19:28:20 <IanH> ack schneid
19:28:22 <uli_> bmotik: it isn't difficult, doable, but will touch many documents
19:28:26 <pfps> there should be no effect on the RDF side
19:28:47 <ivan> q+
19:28:54 <uli_> mschneid: it will have many ramifications, a new feature, almost every document will need to be touched
19:28:57 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
19:28:57 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
19:29:14 <uli_> mschneid: we could also add it post-hume
19:29:16 <IanH> ack ivan
19:29:18 <schneid> zakim, mute me
19:29:19 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
19:29:29 <ewallace> Good to put in now since we are doing new LC.
19:29:37 <pfps> OK, I'll look by next week
19:29:43 <IanH> q?
19:29:46 <uli_> ivan: we should ask bmotik and pfps to tell us exactly how much this would involve
19:30:06 <uli_> ACTION pfps to tell us how much naming of datatypes would cost
19:30:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-305 - Tell us how much naming of datatypes would cost [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-03-11].
19:30:10 <schneid> schneid: as an alternative, we can postpone it
19:30:14 <IanH> q?
19:30:38 <uli_> ;)
19:30:46 <ivan> q+
19:30:50 <IanH> q?
19:30:54 <IanH> ack ivan
19:31:03 <uli_> IanH: thank you everyone for attending and i won't be here next week
19:31:14 <christine> Plan for NF&R : proposal ?
19:31:43 <IanH> q?
19:31:53 <uli_> ivan: we should reorder the agenda so as to get to features at risk, etc
19:31:58 <uli_> IanH: ok
19:32:02 <christine> possible proposal f
19:32:06 <christine> 8 March: deadline for group  input queries of extensions on NF&R
19:32:19 <schneid> but the AtRisk stuff does not need to be decided before LC, right?
19:32:21 <pfps> fine by me
19:32:55 <pfps> NF&R - ship it
19:32:56 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
19:32:58 <IanH> Schedule is here: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline
19:33:04 <uli_> ewallace: christine wants to know schedule for NF&R
19:33:22 <IanH> NF&R is on the same schedule as other docs
19:33:33 <pfps> q+
19:33:44 <pfps> q-
19:33:44 <IanH> q?
19:34:06 <Zakim> -msmith
19:34:09 <IanH> q?
19:34:17 <uli_> pfps: i think christine wants to tell us to not request any changes after March 8
19:34:42 <uli_> ivan: wonders where this request comes from
19:35:01 <IanH> q?
19:35:04 <zimmer> bye all
19:35:09 <pfps> q-
19:35:13 <IanH> q?
19:35:25 <uli_> ivan: why can't we comment after March 8?
19:35:28 <IanH> Why March 8th?
19:35:37 <uli_> Christine?
19:35:54 <uli_> IanH: suggests to drop back to email discussion
19:36:07 <Zhe> bye 
19:36:12 <uli_> ...and declares the meeting closed
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000698