Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-03-11
From OWL
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 <sandro> (this RRSAgent log isn't really an RRSAgent log. We forgot to invite RRSAgent, so I took my xchat log and converted it to RRSAgent format and put it here.) 00:00:00 <scribenick> Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik, bcuencagrau, bijan, Alan Ruttenberg, Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, pfps, bmotik, bijan, sandro, Michael Schneider, Zhe, zimmer, markus, Christine Golbreich, Jeff Pan, calvanese 16:49:08 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl 16:49:08 <Zakim> ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 16:56:26 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:56:33 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:56:56 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:56:56 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:56:58 <Zakim> +Ivan 16:57:31 <Zakim> +aliman 16:57:44 <bmotik> Zakim, aliman is me 16:57:44 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 16:57:48 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 16:57:48 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 16:58:13 <Zakim> +bmotik.a 16:58:19 <Zakim> +??P11 16:58:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau 16:58:23 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it 16:58:26 <bijan> zakim, ??p11 is me 16:58:26 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 16:58:28 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 16:58:28 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 16:58:30 <bijan> zakim, mute me 16:58:30 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 16:59:50 <Zakim> + +03539158aaaa 17:00:17 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aabb 17:01:07 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539158aaaa is mme 17:01:07 <Zakim> +mme; got it 17:01:18 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539158aaaa is me 17:01:18 <Zakim> sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '+03539158aaaa' 17:01:45 <zimmer> Zakim, 03539158aaaa is me 17:01:45 <Zakim> sorry, zimmer, I do not recognize a party named '03539158aaaa' 17:02:31 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Rees 17:02:59 <alanr> zakim, Jonathan_Rees is me 17:02:59 <Zakim> +alanr; got it 17:04:33 <ivan> scribenick: pfps 17:04:48 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aacc 17:04:51 <pfps> Topic: Admin 17:04:55 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, +1.202.408.aacc 17:04:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot 17:05:10 <pfps> SubTopic: Agenda amendments 17:05:26 <Zakim> +[IBM] 17:05:31 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:05:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, bmotik (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), bijan (muted), mme, +1.518.276.aabb, alanr, msmith, [IBM] 17:05:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, msmith, ewallace, baojie, zimmer, alanr, bcuencagrau, ivan, Ratnesh, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, bijan, sandro, trackbot 17:05:43 <baojie> Zakim, aabb is baojie 17:05:43 <Zakim> +baojie; got it 17:05:43 <pfps> SubTopic: Minutes 17:05:46 <pfps> q+ 17:05:48 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me 17:05:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 17:05:57 <alanr> ack pfps 17:06:01 <Zakim> +??P22 17:06:04 <ivan> ack pfps 17:06:09 <Zakim> +Sandro 17:06:11 <pfps> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (4 March) 17:06:15 <alanr> +1 17:06:17 <pfps> alanr: comprehensible 17:06:17 <ivan> +1 17:06:21 <pfps> pfps: minimally acceptable 17:06:23 <pfps> pfps: +1 17:06:24 <zimmer> +1 17:06:25 <christine> q 17:06:30 <alanr> q? 17:06:59 <Zakim> +??P1 17:07:05 <pfps> christine: minutes cut off 17:07:06 <schneid> zakim, ??P1 is me 17:07:09 <Zakim> +schneid; got it 17:07:09 <pfps> q+ 17:07:12 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:07:19 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:07:19 <alanr> ack pfps 17:07:21 <christine> zakim, ??P1 is me 17:07:38 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aadd 17:07:39 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as schneid, christine 17:07:40 <pfps> pfps: what is missing 17:07:44 <alanr> q? 17:07:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace 17:07:49 <Zhe> zakim, +1.603.897.aadd is me 17:07:49 <pfps> christine: IRC occured after end 17:07:51 <pfps> q+ 17:07:56 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it 17:07:56 <alanr> ack pfps 17:08:19 <pfps> pfps: discussion was not part of the meeting 17:08:27 <msmith> I don't see anything else at http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc 17:08:38 <pfps> q+ 17:08:45 <alanr> ack pfps 17:09:26 <zimmer> zakim, mme is really zimmer 17:09:26 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it 17:09:50 <pfps> alanr: things that happen after the meeting are not part of the meeting 17:10:05 <pfps> q+ 17:10:16 <sandro> I guess we're talking about these lines in the irc: 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_36_45 [uli_] am i scribing this? 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_36_55 [uli_] i thought so 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_41_28 [msmith] msmith has left #owl 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_52_01 [uli_] DisjointUnion(A B1 B2 ...Bk) 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_53_10 [uli_] HasSelf(R) 17:10:16 <sandro> 19_53_41 [uli_] MaxCardinality(n R C) 17:10:35 <sandro> (that was from http://www.w3.org/2009/03/04-owl-irc) 17:10:49 <sandro> (and rightfully cut from http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-03-04 ) 17:10:37 <pfps> Resolved: accept minutes of Mar 4 17:11:27 <pfps> sandro: discussion from last week is added to records of this meeting 17:11:32 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:11:34 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:11:36 <pfps> Subtopic: Action item status 17:11:50 <pfps> alanr: pending review actions 17:12:14 <pfps> alanr: what about 301 - is Andy happy? 17:12:25 <pfps> baojie: didn't hear anything back 17:12:26 <bijan> Perhaps I should take it 17:12:31 <pfps> alanr: keep open? 17:12:31 <bijan> I'm interacting with andy via sparql 17:12:55 <pfps> sandro: please ping andy and tell him we want to republish soon 17:13:10 <pfps> alanr: please adjust status of 301 17:13:23 <pfps> baojie: OK 17:13:23 <alanr> q? 17:13:26 <alanr> ack pfps 17:13:27 <pfps> q- 17:13:42 <pfps> SubTopic: Due and Overdue Actions 17:14:10 <pfps> q+ 17:14:49 <pfps> boris: 270 will be picked up in current edits 17:15:01 <pfps> boris: currently in progress 17:15:19 <pfps> sandro: ongoing discussion with RIF on 292 17:15:28 <pfps> alanr: 300 is done 17:15:39 <pfps> sandro: waiting on 299 until publication 17:15:49 <pfps> alanr: 283 is done 17:15:58 <pfps> Topic: Datatypes 17:16:13 <pfps> alanr: several (draft) proposals on the table 17:16:20 <bijan> I'm good with it 17:16:25 <bmotik> +1 17:16:28 <alanr> Proposal: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62. 17:16:36 <ewallace> +1 17:16:37 <bmotik> +1 17:16:37 <ivan> +1 17:16:39 <alanr> +1 17:16:40 <bijan> +1 17:16:40 <msmith> +1 17:16:41 <schneid> +1 17:16:42 <christine> +1 17:16:43 <zimmer> +1 17:16:45 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:16:47 <pfps> pfps: +1 17:16:47 <baojie> +1 17:16:47 <Ratnesh> +1 17:16:48 <Achille> +1 17:16:48 <Zhe> +1 17:16:51 <sandro> +1 17:16:59 <pfps> Resolved: Add named datatypes to OWL 2 - one definition per datatype not in the datatype map, acyclic, as per email from Boris and mentioned in LC Comments 51 and 62. 17:17:33 <pfps> alanr: datatype disjointness - Sandro will moderate 17:17:44 <pfps> Draft Proposal: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:18:02 <alanr> q+ 17:18:15 <ivan> ack pfps 17:18:26 <pfps> sandro: discussed at F2F5 - Alan and Zhe wanted to wait 17:18:36 <pfps> sandro: Zhe seems to be comfortable now 17:18:45 <pfps> q- 17:19:13 <pfps> alanr: communicated with Chris Welty (RIF chair) 17:19:25 <Zhe> q+ 17:19:26 <schneid> alan, if we *keep* disjointness? 17:19:31 <bijan> q+ 17:19:44 <pfps> alanr: Rees unhappy if we have the extra disjointness 17:19:44 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:19:44 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:20:10 <pfps> alanr: XML Schema has issues for us and is not unhappy with our current design 17:20:22 <pfps> alanr: so no need to change and little gain 17:20:22 <schneid> alanr: jonathan rees considers formally objecting against disjointness 17:20:26 <sandro> ack Zhe 17:20:46 <sandro> (Gary Hallmark) 17:20:55 <sandro> (the Oracle rep in RIF) 17:21:18 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:21:18 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:21:18 <sandro> ack bijan 17:21:19 <pfps> zhe: talked to Oracle's RIF rep and team - want to be aligned with XML schema 17:21:22 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:21:22 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik 17:22:02 <pfps> bijan: SC is likely to object if disjointness changed, Manchester likely to object if not changed 17:22:20 <pfps> bijan: I think that we made a mistake and we should change 17:22:21 <Zhe> Oracle wants OWL spec to be aligned with XML schema in terms of datatype disjointness 17:22:27 <msmith> q+ 17:22:33 <pfps> sandro: what about the binary DTs 17:22:49 <pfps> bijan: because all primitives are disjoint 17:23:01 <msmith> q- bijan covered it 17:23:04 <msmith> q- 17:23:13 <pfps> bijan: so no conversion/coersion is needed 17:23:14 <alanr> I don't think it's right but I wouldn't object. 17:23:45 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:23:45 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:24:04 <pfps> sandro: other objections? 17:24:13 <schneid> q+ 17:24:13 <pfps> pfps: not object but strong for disjoint 17:24:19 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 17:24:19 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 17:24:21 <sandro> ack schneid 17:24:36 <pfps> schneid: need to talk to my institute for objection 17:24:45 <pfps> q+ 17:24:49 <sandro> ack pfps 17:25:18 <pfps> pfps: for an objection, only? 17:25:21 <pfps> schneid: right 17:25:32 <alanr> q+ 17:25:39 <bmotik> 1+ 17:25:41 <bmotik> q+ 17:25:46 <pfps> sandro: no need to wait on vote 17:25:48 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:25:48 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:25:48 <sandro> ack alanr 17:25:48 <bijan> +1 to sandro's assessment 17:25:50 <ivan> ack alanr 17:25:57 <bijan> q+ 17:26:02 <pfps> alanr: what about discussion with RIF 17:26:16 <alanr> q+ 17:26:19 <pfps> sandro: most opinions don't depend on RIF, I think 17:26:36 <schneid> schneid: All I said is that I will consult with my institute to see where we stand, and how strong, since compatibilty questions are generally relevant for us 17:26:41 <bijan> I wouldn't change my mind 17:26:47 <sandro> q? 17:26:50 <sandro> ack bmotik 17:26:51 <pfps> sandro: if RIF changes, then this might trigger some more discussion 17:27:01 <pfps> boris: vote on numerics or all? 17:27:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:27:17 <pfps> sandro: proposal is as in XML Schema 17:27:37 <sandro> ack bijan 17:27:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:27:40 <sandro> q? 17:27:41 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 17:27:48 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:27:48 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:28:02 <pfps> bijan: could SC change depending on RIF discussion? 17:28:07 <sandro> q? 17:28:09 <sandro> ack alanr 17:28:30 <pfps> alanr: can't rule it out 17:28:43 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:28:43 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:28:48 <pfps> alanr: is there new information? 17:28:51 <bijan> q+ 17:28:52 <alanr> q+ 17:28:53 <pfps> q+ 17:29:02 <pfps> sandro: implementation report is new information 17:29:10 <sandro> ack bijan 17:29:22 <alanr> disagree that they were strongest champion 17:29:50 <pfps> bijan: and also change from Oxford, Oracle 17:29:58 <sandro> ack alanr 17:30:16 <sandro> ack pfps 17:30:27 <alanr> good point 17:30:30 <pfps> pfps: we also have LC comments on the issue 17:30:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:31:01 <sandro> (formal vote by organization, expecting objection from Science Commons.) 17:30:53 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:30:54 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU 17:30:59 <bijan> +1 (Manchester) 17:31:00 <schneid> +1 (FZI) 17:31:01 <alanr> -1 (Science Commons) 17:31:02 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:31:03 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:31:04 <baojie> +1 (RPI) 17:31:07 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE 17:31:07 <christine> +1 17:31:11 <zimmer> +1 (DERI) 17:31:11 <ivan> +1 (W3C) 17:31:12 <Ratnesh> +1 17:31:23 <msmith> +1 C&P 17:31:54 <sandro> RESOLVED: (over one objection) OWL 2 datatypes will have disjointness as in XML Schema (i.e., the datatypes xsd:string, xsd:boolean, owl:real, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTimeStamp, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, and xsd:anyURI are pairwise disjoint), as requested in LC Comments 22 and 24. 17:32:44 <sandro> PROPOSED: OWL 2 datatypes will be as in Last Call draft (non-disjoint) -- the inverse of the above resolution 17:32:45 <bijan> And Manchester would formally object if this resolution was overturned 17:32:51 <alanr> q+ 17:32:54 <bijan> -1 (formal object) (Manchester) 17:32:56 <pfps> pfps: -0 17:33:04 <msmith> 0 C&P 17:33:05 <bmotik> 0 17:33:06 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:33:08 <sandro> -0 17:33:10 <ewallace> -0 17:33:17 <Achille> -1 (IBM) 17:33:21 <schneid> -0 17:33:25 <ivan> -1 17:33:26 <Zhe> -0 (depends on RIF) 17:33:27 <christine> 0 17:33:28 <baojie> 0 17:33:33 <zimmer> 0 17:33:36 <Ratnesh> 0 (DERI) 17:33:57 <sandro> proposal fails, as expected -- clarifying need to override one objections. 17:34:12 <schneid> (might become a -1, depending on outcome with talking to my institute) 17:34:57 <pfps> alanr: what about owl:real - it seems to be not useful now 17:34:58 <bmotik> q+ 17:35:02 <ivan> ack alanr 17:35:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:35:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:35:15 <bijan> Email 17:35:20 <alanr> q? 17:35:25 <sandro> ack bmotik 17:35:28 <ivan> ack bmotik 17:35:39 <pfps> boris: owl:realPlus is useless now 17:35:42 <pfps> q+ 17:35:44 <bijan> That was my understanding 17:35:45 <sandro> ack pfps 17:35:46 <msmith> yes, realPlus is out 17:35:57 <pfps> pfps: there is a draft proposal to remove realPlus 17:36:06 <sandro> PROPOSED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers. 17:36:23 <ivan> +1 17:36:24 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:36:24 <zimmer> +1 17:36:26 <pfps> bijan: do it 17:36:27 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:36:30 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE) 17:36:33 <pfps> boris: it goes 17:36:34 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:36:36 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:36:36 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:36:37 <bijan> +1 (Manchester) 17:36:39 <schneid> +1 (FZI) 17:36:39 <Ratnesh> +1 (DERI) 17:36:40 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU 17:36:43 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons) only if previous proposal stands. 17:36:55 <sandro> RESOLVED: Remove the datatype owl:realPlus from OWL 2, as it was introduced to unify floats, doubles, and other numbers. 17:37:10 <baojie> +1 17:37:14 <Achille> +1 17:37:41 <pfps> alanr: if the previous proposal is overturned, then realPlus should rise from the grave 17:37:51 <alanr> q? 17:38:14 <pfps> Topic: Document plans 17:38:28 <bmotik> Zakum, unmute me 17:38:37 <pfps> alanr: status of changes to syntax? 17:38:49 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:38:49 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:39:10 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:39:10 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 17:39:13 <pfps> boris: probably tomorrow is the end of the big changes, but maybe Friday 17:39:14 <bijan> q+ 17:39:21 <alanr> ack bijan 17:39:28 <pfps> alanr: rdf:text 17:39:49 <pfps> baojie: <scribe needs help here> 17:40:11 <pfps> bijan: sparql may have something to say, but there is sufficient player overlap 17:40:23 <pfps> bijan: I'll ping axel 17:40:39 <ivan> q+ 17:40:40 <pfps> sandro: we want rdf:text to go to LC ASAP, ask them for review 17:41:04 <baojie> baojie: I have done changes per Andy's comment. I'm not aware of other comments 17:41:13 <alanr> q? 17:41:14 <pfps> alanr: we don't want to formally link to sparql because of timing 17:41:17 <alanr> ack ivan 17:41:43 <bijan> q+ 17:42:07 <pfps> ivan: sparql is very early so we may not get any good information from them, any feedback is likely only andy 17:42:07 <alanr> ack bijan 17:42:45 <sandro> q+ 17:42:54 <pfps> bijan: i share these concerns, but ... we would like sparql to do sparql owl and sparql has new virtuous people 17:43:10 <pfps> bijan: sparql should implement rdf:text 17:43:14 <alanr> ack sandro 17:43:17 <alanr> q? 17:43:25 <ivan> q+ 17:43:31 <pfps> sandro: maybe not, i would be unhappy if it would 17:43:42 <pfps> sandro: andy had last comments that were editorial 17:43:43 <alanr> that was my understanding 17:43:51 <pfps> bijan: then no worries 17:44:08 <pfps> sandro: lets address comments (andy) and go to LC when sparql can review 17:44:11 <alanr> ack ivan 17:44:12 <ivan> q- 17:44:21 <pfps> sandro: Are we happy? Is RIF happy? If so, proceed. 17:44:40 <pfps> alanr: need schedule for LC on rdf:text 17:45:10 <pfps> baojie: need andy happy - I also have extra comments that may need some time 17:45:13 <pfps> alanr: schedule? 17:45:31 <christine> irc frozen ? 17:45:31 <pfps> baojie: depends on andy responding 17:45:41 <pfps> ivan: andy did just reply 17:46:09 <christine> q 17:46:24 <pfps> alanr: want to ensure progress - please get firm schedule by next week 17:46:33 <bijan> q+ 17:46:35 <pfps> baojie: andy doesn't have time to review 17:46:41 <ivan> his reply is: We have not had time to review the changes. I was not aware there was a time scale and will endeavour to review the changes soon. 17:46:49 <pfps> alanr: can we press the issue? 17:46:51 <alanr> ack bijan 17:47:39 <pfps> bijan: editors can make a good attempt. if they think that the changes are OK, then we can proceed, even without responses 17:47:55 <pfps> alanr: by next week we want a firm schedule 17:48:05 <pfps> baojie: OK - I'll talk to the parties 17:48:19 <pfps> alanr: Quick Reference Guide 17:48:24 <ivan> q+ 17:48:29 <alanr> ack ivan 17:48:39 <pfps> alanr: we need reviewers for this - not a LC publication 17:48:46 <pfps> ivan: I'll review 17:48:47 <bijan> I can secure a reviewer from Manchester 17:48:48 <alanr> q? 17:48:52 <bcuencagrau> I can 17:48:56 <pfps> christine: I'll review 17:49:10 <pfps> action: ivan review QRG 17:49:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-306 - Review QRG [on Ivan Herman - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:12 <bcuencagrau> A week is fine 17:49:21 <pfps> action: christine review QRG 17:49:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Review QRG [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:32 <pfps> action: bijan review QRG 17:49:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-308 - Review QRG [on Bijan Parsia - due 2009-03-18]. 17:49:35 <alanr> q? 17:49:54 <ivan> q+ 17:49:58 <alanr> ack ivan 17:49:59 <pfps> action: bernardo review QRG 17:49:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Review QRG [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2009-03-18]. 17:50:09 <pfps> bijan: review what form? 17:50:28 <pfps> ivan: review wiki, other versions may look somewhat different 17:50:48 <alanr> q? 17:50:53 <pfps> bijan: what about making the QRG look really nice - i've done some work 17:51:17 <pfps> alanr: review document for content and HTML presentation 17:51:33 <pfps> bijan: but QRG is supposed to have HTML look like PDF 17:51:49 <pfps> baojie: HTML is 10 pages PDF will be much less 17:52:02 <ivan> q+ 17:52:12 <pfps> bijan: I sent out a css method that makes the HTML and the PDF look the same 17:52:13 <alanr> q? 17:52:17 <alanr> ack ivan 17:52:26 <pfps> bijan: there appears to be two documents, is there, what am I reviewing 17:52:44 <pfps> baojie: content is the same, layout is a bit different - PDF is three columns 17:52:54 <pfps> bijan: but css can to multi-column 17:53:05 <bijan> This isn't current? http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/8b/Owl2-refcard_2008-10-01.pdf 17:53:11 <cgolbrei> struggling with IRC frozen! 17:53:27 <pfps> ivan: this document is going to REC, so the W3C HTML version is authoritative 17:53:29 <bijan> q+ 17:53:30 <baojie> No, it is obsolete 17:53:34 <alanr> ack bijan 17:53:44 <pfps> ivan: other display methods are not authoritative 17:53:55 <pfps> bijan: I didn't expect this 17:54:28 <pfps> alanr: review content (correctness, wording) but consider presentation as well 17:54:36 <pfps> bijan: fair enough 17:54:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:54:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:54:55 <pfps> alanr: Document Overview 17:55:03 <pfps> alanr: appears to be decent shape 17:55:30 <pfps> alanr: need decision to publish as FPWD, some minor comments outstanding 17:56:11 <pfps> sandro: i'm not aware of any blockers, some bibliography fixes, nothing major 17:56:12 <alanr> ack cgolbrei 17:56:12 <ewallace> What about Venn diagram? 17:56:29 <pfps> christine: what is the version we should look at 17:56:36 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview 17:56:39 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 17:56:39 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik 17:56:51 <msmith> I would like to see the sentence reference OWL Full Semantics removed before publish 17:56:55 <pfps> sandro: the current Wiki page, as always 17:57:04 <bijan> oh... 17:57:13 <bijan> Figure 1 contains GRDDL 17:57:17 <pfps> christine: will roadmap be moved? 17:57:17 <bijan> That's a bit controversial 17:57:33 <pfps> sandro: we should decide now 17:57:37 <bijan> q+ 17:57:40 <msmith> q+ 17:57:40 <pfps> alanr: any blockers? 17:57:41 <alanr> ack bijan 17:58:03 <pfps> bijan: diagram has GRDDL but we are not completely resolved on this 17:58:03 <schneid> ok, to take out GRDDL for the moment 17:58:11 <pfps> sandro: question mark on GRDDL? 17:58:15 <pfps> bijan: would be OK 17:58:22 <alanr> prefer editorial note over "?" 17:58:27 <alanr> q? 17:58:43 <ivan> q+ 17:58:58 <pfps> msmith: what about OWL 2 Full? 17:59:03 <pfps> sandro: forgot about that 17:59:11 <alanr> ack ivan 17:59:19 <alanr> ack msmith 17:59:23 <pfps> ivan: what about the diagram? 17:59:50 <alanr> q? 17:59:55 <bijan> I suggest "EdNote: The exact nature of the GRDDL relation is still an open issue." 18:00:26 <alanr> to resolve: roadmap placement, OWL 2 Full, alan's minor edits 18:00:49 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaee 18:01:11 <calvanese> zakim, aaee is me 18:01:11 <Zakim> +calvanese; got it 18:01:13 <Zakim> +??P3 18:01:15 <pfps> ivan: what about names? OWL Full? 18:01:24 <calvanese> zakim, mute me 18:01:24 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted 18:01:27 <alanr> "This semantics for OWL 2 Ontologies is sometimes called the “OWL 2 Full” semantics and “OWL 2 Full” is also used to refer to the entire OWL 2 language, particularly when expressed as RDF graphs." 18:01:28 <pfps> sandro: only thing about OWL 2 Full is in semantics section 18:02:06 <pfps> ivan: its a FPWD so details don't matter too much 18:02:09 <sandro> agreed -- we'll adopt msmith's proposal 18:02:16 <alanr> ack cgolbrei 18:02:31 <ivan> q+ 18:02:41 <schneid> q+ 18:02:46 <pfps> christine: need to consider longer 18:03:01 <pfps> alanr: we already extended the decision 18:03:12 <pfps> christine: lots of discussion has happened 18:03:28 <alanr> ack sandro 18:03:37 <cgolbrei> why bijan laugh? 18:03:52 <alanr> ack ivan 18:03:56 <pfps> sandro: it will take a couple of days to get out the door, so we do have a bit of time to wait for objections 18:03:59 <cgolbrei> ah! 18:04:09 <JeffP> Sorry for the late 18:04:18 <cgolbrei> q 18:04:18 <Zakim> + +0122427aaff 18:04:31 <alanr> ack schneid 18:04:33 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:04:33 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid 18:04:33 <pfps> ivan: this is only a FPWD, so it doesn't have to be near perfect 18:04:48 <pfps> michael: OWL 2 Full? 18:04:50 <pfps> q+ 18:05:04 <pfps> q- 18:05:13 <pfps> michael: agree to removing 18:05:21 <cgolbrei> is there no risk of reaction even on a FPWD 18:05:27 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:05:27 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:05:32 <pfps> q+ 18:05:33 <bijan> I do! 18:05:37 <pfps> pfps: me too 18:05:40 <alanr> ack pfps 18:05:56 <bijan> I totally agree with what Peter just said 18:06:08 <sandro> q? 18:06:10 <pfps> pfps: roadmap first is cart before the horse 18:06:19 <schneid> +1 to peter, we have the diagram at the beginning, that's perfectly fine 18:06:31 <cgolbrei> usualy Table of Contents is first 18:06:37 <pfps> bijan: document roadmap is not user friendly at the beginning 18:06:37 <ivan> +1 to peter and bijan 18:06:41 <alanr> q? 18:06:48 <bijan> q+ 18:07:00 <alanr> q? 18:07:02 <pfps> sandro: roadmap is like the ToC so it should be first 18:07:05 <alanr> ack bijan 18:07:18 <cgolbrei> present TOC is not explicit 18:07:26 <pfps> bijan: roadmap is not like a ToC - it is like a ... roadmap! 18:07:39 <sandro> rofl 18:07:39 <pfps> sandro: I hate those (but I don't hate the roadmap) 18:07:44 <schneid> it's not a TOC, it's a list of references 18:07:54 <alanr> straw poll: I like the roadmap at the top 18:07:57 <pfps> pfps: -1 18:07:57 <Achille> +0.5 18:07:58 <schneid> -1 18:07:59 <baojie> 0 18:07:59 <cgolbrei> +1 18:08:00 <bijan> -1 18:08:01 <ewallace> 0 18:08:01 <alanr> 0 18:08:01 <sandro> 0 18:08:04 <Zhe> 0 18:08:04 <ivan> -1 18:08:04 <JeffP> 0 18:08:05 <bcuencagrau> 0 18:08:09 <msmith> 0 18:08:09 <zimmer> 0.5 18:08:25 <cgolbrei> should we add 0.5 ? 18:08:47 <MarkusK_> -0 18:08:53 <sandro> alan: keep in its current place in this draft; maybe revisit. 18:08:53 <pfps> alanr: keep roadmap were it is (for now) 18:09:06 <pfps> alanr: changes about QL and RL 18:09:09 <bijan> I'll also note that the roadmap is *not* a table of contents *for this document*. 18:09:12 <ivan> q+ 18:09:18 <alanr> ack ivan 18:09:20 <pfps> pfps: QL and RL OK by me 18:09:54 <bijan> Who do we direct comments to? 18:09:57 <bijan> "OWL 2 adds new functionality with respect to OWL 1. Some of the new features are syntactic sugar (e.g., disjoint union of classes) while others offer new reasoning capabilities, including:" 18:10:03 <pfps> alanr: sandro start the process 18:10:09 <bijan> The features don't add reasoning capabilities, but expressivity 18:10:17 <bijan> Can we have de facto editors? 18:10:23 <bijan> i.e., "pester victims" 18:10:28 <pfps> sandro: agreed that this is a WG document 18:10:38 <pfps> sandro: I'm the victim this week 18:10:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed. 18:10:53 <pfps> pfps: +1 ALU 18:10:55 <ivan> +1 18:10:57 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 18:11:01 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 18:11:02 <ewallace> +1 18:11:03 <Zhe> +1 18:11:05 <msmith> +1 18:11:05 <bijan> +1 18:11:14 <Achille> +0 18:11:14 <schneid> +1 18:11:17 <JeffP> 0 18:11:34 <pfps> Resolved: Publish http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview as a FPWD, with changes agreed to in this meeting, and give folks 24 hours to object in case there's something critical they missed. 18:12:21 <pfps> alanr: NF&R - is it ready for publication (not LC) in April 18:12:30 <ewallace> When did we agree that UF docs wouldn't go to last call? 18:12:35 <alanr> at the f2f 18:12:42 <alanr> (I hope) 18:13:04 <bijan> q+ 18:13:33 <sandro> (Yikes, RRSAgent isn't here. Fortunately, I have an xchatlog, which we can use..... I'll do that Peter.) 18:13:56 <ewallace> Not that I heard or saw in minutes. But don't want to disrupt the meeting. 18:13:56 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:13:56 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 18:13:56 <alanr> ack bijan 18:13:58 <pfps> christine: nearly finished 18:14:16 <pfps> bijan: outstanding comment from about one use case 18:14:25 <pfps> alanr: please send a note to me 18:14:36 <ewallace> I think that Bijan's comment is on a use case table 18:15:37 <pfps> alanr: we need to take bijan at his word as to whether his comment was addressed 18:15:50 <pfps> bijan: I haven't heard anything 18:16:28 <pfps> christine: reviewers for NF&R? 18:16:49 <pfps> alanr: for next meeting 18:17:02 <pfps> alanr: Manchester syntax 18:17:23 <pfps> alanr: I have objected to removal of editorial notes and not addressing issue 146 18:17:25 <pfps> q+ 18:17:29 <alanr> ack pfps 18:17:45 <pfps> pfps: objections have to be public 18:17:56 <pfps> alanr: i object now 18:18:20 <pfps> pfps: I object to pocket vetos 18:18:27 <pfps> alanr: I need to wait for Ian 18:18:37 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:18:37 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 18:18:45 <pfps> alanr: Data Range Extensions 18:19:16 <pfps> bijan: delayed because of XML syntax - when is next round 18:19:30 <pfps> alanr: finish by end of month - publlish for mid-April 18:19:40 <pfps> bijan: sounds doable 18:19:51 <pfps> bijan: this is a note 18:19:58 <pfps> alanr: but we want it to be good 18:20:07 <pfps> bijan: doesn't need to be LC (ever) 18:20:13 <pfps> sandro: right 18:20:32 <ivan> q+ 18:20:38 <alanr> ack ivan 18:20:44 <pfps> sandro: roadmap points to it, so it would be good to have a FPWD 18:20:53 <alanr> q+ 18:20:54 <pfps> bijan: any problem with current status as FPWD 18:20:58 <ivan> q- 18:21:13 <ivan> q+ 18:21:27 <pfps> alanr: want a full thing before FPWD 18:21:28 <alanr> ack alanr 18:21:33 <alanr> ack ivan 18:22:00 <pfps> ivan: no problem because it will be a note 18:22:07 <pfps> ivan: at CR time we want a good version 18:22:18 <bijan> q+ 18:22:42 <pfps> ivan: roadmap should state note status of notes 18:23:04 <pfps> sandro: this is intentional 18:23:31 <alanr> q+ alanr 18:23:34 <alanr> ack bijan 18:24:10 <alanr> ack alanr 18:24:13 <pfps> bijan: agree with Ivan - should be good, but timeline isn't so tight - FPWD can be a bit sketchy 18:24:45 <pfps> alanr: want at least something about RDF mapping and one example for FPWD 18:24:58 <pfps> bijan: OK, can be done soon 18:25:09 <pfps> alanr: Document Overview (again) 18:25:39 <schneid> q+ 18:25:39 <pfps> ivan: just want to make situation clear 18:25:50 <bijan> I'd prefer being ambiguous 18:25:56 <pfps> sandro: I'm fine as long as it's not *IN YOUR FACE* 18:26:03 <bijan> But I'm not hard for it 18:26:08 <schneid> q- 18:26:21 <bijan> yep 18:26:26 <pfps> alanr: OK, lets do it 18:26:53 <schneid> RDF-Based? 18:26:57 <pfps> Topic: LC Comments 18:27:06 <ivan> i think it is too short 18:27:11 <schneid> q+ 18:27:18 <pfps> alanr: can we mass-approve quick approval ones 18:27:18 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:27:18 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:27:20 <alanr> ack schneid 18:27:50 <ivan> and there is a discussion thread there... 18:28:31 <pfps> schneid: not 28 18:28:40 <ivan> and 48 and 58 18:29:03 <bmotik> q+ 18:29:04 <Zakim> -Achille 18:29:07 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 18:29:07 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 18:29:12 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:29:12 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:29:21 <pfps> alanr: we are out of time 18:29:25 <alanr> q? 18:29:28 <pfps> alanr: we will bring all this up next week 18:29:30 <alanr> ack bmotik 18:30:03 <Zakim> -Zhe 18:30:04 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:30:04 <Zakim> - +0122427aaff 18:30:08 <Ratnesh> bye 18:30:10 <Zakim> -msmith 18:30:11 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace 18:30:11 <Zakim> -alanr 18:30:15 <Zakim> -baojie 18:30:15 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 18:30:15 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:30:16 <Zakim> -Ivan 18:30:16 <Zakim> -calvanese 18:30:24 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 18:31:35 <Zakim> -schneid 18:32:08 <Zakim> -zimmer # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000685