Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-04-01
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<MarkusK_> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille, Alan Ruttenberg, Evan_Wallace, msmith, Michael Schneider, jar, zimmer 16:49:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:49:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc 16:49:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #owl 16:51:00 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl 16:53:34 <pfps> zakim, this is owl 16:53:34 <Zakim> ok, pfps; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM 16:53:41 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone? 16:53:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:56:43 <Zakim> +??P12 16:56:51 <bijan> zakim, ??P12 is me 16:56:51 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 16:56:53 <bijan> zakim, mute me 16:56:53 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 16:57:04 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 16:57:16 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl 16:57:16 <Zakim> ok, bmotik, I see SW_OWL()1:00PM already started 16:57:43 <Zakim> +bcuencag2 16:57:46 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl 16:57:50 <bmotik> Zakim, bcuencag2 is me 16:57:50 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 16:57:53 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 16:57:53 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 16:58:14 <Zakim> +??P6 16:58:18 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:58:18 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:58:20 <Zakim> +Ivan 16:58:29 <MarkusK_> ScribeNick: MarkusK_ 16:58:55 <Zakim> +Sandro 16:59:12 <christine> christine has joined #owl 16:59:53 <pfps> didn't Alan promise to find where we agreed on the five-minute rule? 17:00:11 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 17:00:30 <Zakim> +??P14 17:00:38 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 17:00:44 <IanH> i'm trying to connect, but zakim isn't cooperating 17:00:46 <christine> Zakim, ??P14 is me 17:00:46 <Zakim> +christine; got it 17:00:54 <Zakim> +??P18 17:01:05 <uli> zakim, ??P18 is me 17:01:05 <Zakim> +uli; got it 17:01:09 <IanH> I will hopefully be connected soon! 17:01:12 <Zakim> +Zhe 17:01:15 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl 17:01:18 <uli> zakim, mute me 17:01:18 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 17:01:19 <Zhe> zakim, mute me 17:01:19 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted 17:01:20 <Zakim> -christine 17:01:25 <Zakim> +IanH 17:01:30 <sandro> zakim, who is here? 17:01:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH 17:01:31 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 17:01:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot 17:01:47 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl 17:01:55 <Zakim> +bmotik.a 17:01:57 <Zakim> +??P19 17:01:57 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 17:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bmotik.a, ??P19 17:01:58 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:02:01 <MarkusK_> Topic: Admin 17:02:01 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Roll call 17:02:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, alanr, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, trackbot 17:02:06 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:02:07 <christine> Zakim, ??P19 is me 17:02:11 <Zakim> +christine; got it 17:02:13 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Agenda amendments? 17:02:19 <Zakim> +baojie 17:02:20 <MarkusK_> Ian: No amendments. 17:02:29 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Previous minutes 17:02:32 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, bmotik.a is bcuencagrau 17:02:32 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it 17:02:37 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:02:37 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:02:55 <MarkusK_> Ian: Can somebody confirm that the minutes are in good shape? 17:02:50 <pfps> they look OK, except that I seem to remember that Alan was going to find out about the five-minute rule 17:02:55 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl 17:03:19 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.04.01/Agenda 17:03:25 <MarkusK_> Resolved: accept previous minutes 17:03:33 <Zakim> +[IBM] 17:03:35 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 17:03:37 <pfps> q+ 17:03:37 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Action Item Status 17:03:37 <MarkusK_> Subsubtopic: Pending Review Actions 17:03:47 <IanH> ack pfps 17:03:51 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me 17:03:51 <MarkusK_> Ian: Any comments on pending review actions? 17:03:49 <pfps> some of these have been previously approved 17:03:51 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 17:03:51 <Zakim> +Alan 17:04:08 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some of the actions did not get updated; they are all good otherwise. 17:04:20 <MarkusK_> Subsubtopic: Due and Overdue Actions 17:04:44 <MarkusK_> Ian: there is nothing to Action 299 to be done right now 17:04:47 <MarkusK_> Sandro: yes 17:04:55 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 322 is done 17:04:39 <alanr> yes 17:05:01 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl 17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 320 was also done 17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Action 319? 17:05:44 <MarkusK_> Achille: The according review will be sent today. 17:05:14 <MarkusK_> Ian: Is Action 311 progressing? 17:05:20 <bcuencagrau> yes 17:05:23 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, unmute me 17:05:24 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should no longer be muted 17:06:26 <MarkusK_> Bernardo: Action 311 will also be done soon. 17:05:48 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 17:05:48 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:05:48 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:06:35 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, so all reviews are progressing well. 17:06:49 <MarkusK_> Topic: Documents and Reviewing 17:06:49 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: References 17:07:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: Sandro, there will be some technical solution to automatically create references in documents? 17:07:45 <MarkusK_> Sandro: There are currently some open issues, and the documents do not agree with the W3C policies on howe references should look. I will discuss this in email. 17:08:50 <MarkusK_> Ian: OK; it would be good if there would not be many additional changes to be done by the editors for fixing the references. 17:09:19 <pfps> +1 to a single list 17:06:11 <pfps> q+ to talk about rdf:text 17:06:12 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace 17:06:12 <IanH> q? 17:06:16 <Zakim> +msmith 17:06:16 <IanH> ack pfps 17:06:17 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text 17:09:26 <MarkusK_> subtopic: Changes since last call 17:09:44 <MarkusK_> Ian: is it okay and suitable to have a single wiki page with changes since LC 1? 17:09:45 <pfps> even if we don't need a list, it is an excellent idea, and we should make it prominent 17:09:54 <pfps> how about in the announcement? 17:10:11 <MarkusK_> Ian: There seems to be no strict requirement to have such a list. 17:10:22 <pfps> OK 17:10:25 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, but having one is clearly useful. 17:10:51 <MarkusK_> Ian: Okay, so we keep the single wiki page and do not add separate change lists to each document 17:11:20 <ewallace> Let's not document every minor editorial fix 17:11:21 <MarkusK_> Sandro: There are some changes that affect many documents anyway, but other changes might be local to some documents. 17:11:26 <pfps> the advantage of a list (and it's in *the* list) is that it can point to last-call comments 17:11:40 <pfps> it's on the wiki now 17:11:43 <pfps> q+ 17:11:50 <MarkusK_> Ian: Yes, but many changes have been merely editorial; it might be enough to record the major changes 17:12:19 <MarkusK_> A single list of major changes was already created: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Changes_since_1st_Last_Call 17:12:36 <jar> jar has joined #owl 17:12:46 <pfps> go wild! 17:12:48 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl 17:13:05 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Could we retitle this to "Changes since Sept 2008" or similar since some documents were not in LC then. 17:13:19 <Zakim> +??P11 17:13:29 <schneid> zakim, ??P11 is me 17:13:29 <Zakim> +schneid; got it 17:13:33 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:13:33 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:13:33 <IanH> q? 17:13:42 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, feel free to change this, Sandro. 17:14:06 <pfps> q+ 17:14:14 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Publication Schedule 17:14:30 <pfps> q+ to discuss rdf:text document 17:14:32 <MarkusK_> Ian: The timeline is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Timeline. This states that the review started yesterday, and there will be a publication round on Apr 15. Initially, we were imagining that all rec track documents would go to LC at this time. This may not be needed for all documents, esp. not for documents that need no CR phase. Those could have another public WD and then have the LC later. 17:15:23 <jar> zakim, what conference is this? 17:15:23 <Zakim> this is SW_OWL()1:00PM conference code 69594 17:15:34 <schneid> q+ 17:15:36 <pfps> +1 17:15:37 <christine> +q 17:15:42 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl 17:15:43 <alanr> +1 17:15:43 <IanH> ack pfps 17:15:43 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss rdf:text document 17:15:44 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 17:15:46 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 17:15:49 <IanH> ack michael 17:15:52 <Zakim> +jar 17:16:30 <MarkusK_> mschneider: How long would LC be delayed in those cases? If its only some weeks, then we may also wait this short time. 17:16:38 <ivan> yes 17:16:44 <bijan> I would prefer that 17:17:02 <pfps> Primer in particular is not going to be ready for LC by the 15th 17:17:04 <IanH> q? 17:17:07 <bijan> Esp. since we might have to change the normative documents in response to 2nd last call 17:17:10 <MarkusK_> Ian: We may not need user facing documents at last call before CR of the other technical documents. 17:17:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:17:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:17:17 <IanH> ack schneid 17:17:30 <MarkusK_> MSchneider: That sounds good to me. 17:17:32 <Zakim> +??P16 17:17:46 <zimmer> Zkaim, ??P16 is me 17:17:47 <MarkusK_> Christine: I do not think that this delay is needed. Some reviews were very late. But some user facing documents may still be ready for LC now. 17:17:48 <pfps> QRG needs *significant* work still, so I don't see how it can be ready 17:18:07 <zimmer> Zakim, ??P16 is me 17:18:07 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it 17:18:16 <pfps> I don't think that *any* reviews are *late* yet. 17:18:21 <bijan> I don't believe we have consensus that any of the UFD are ready for last call publication 17:18:36 <IanH> q? 17:18:42 <IanH> ack christine 17:18:44 <MarkusK_> Christine: We do not need to publish all user-facing docs at the same time. 17:18:45 <ewallace> It's less work to respond to simple Public WG pub than to LC 17:18:48 <ivan> q+ 17:18:59 <ewallace> so delaying can be a plus for the editors 17:19:01 <MarkusK_> Ian: I do not think any reviews were late yet, according to the timeline. Do you think that NF&R can go to LC now? 17:19:41 <MarkusK_> Christine: Yes, I think this is possible and it would be useful. 17:19:09 <sandro> q? 17:19:15 <pfps> I think that NF&R needs significant work yet 17:19:19 <alanr> as do I 17:19:21 <IanH> ack ivan 17:19:43 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:19:43 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:19:52 <bijan> q+ 17:19:53 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I do not think that we have to make this decision now. We can always publish documents with the next publication round on short notice. We can make this decision when we have the formal vote on the other documents. 17:20:08 <IanH> q? 17:20:14 <sandro> q+ to clarify what the decision means 17:20:43 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:20:43 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:20:49 <IanH> ack bijan 17:21:03 <christine> +q 17:21:20 <ewallace> IanH: the schedule pressure on the UF documents is simply not as much as the others. 17:21:21 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:21:21 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:21:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, it should still be noted that the user-facing documents are not under the same publication pressure as the other technical documents. 17:21:47 <MarkusK_> Bijan: It might be good to publish all user-facing documents at once, since they address the same audience. 17:21:31 <IanH> q? 17:21:35 <IanH> ack sandro 17:21:35 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to clarify what the decision means 17:22:49 <MarkusK_> Sandro: As I read the timeline, we only agreed to publish all documents on Apr 15, with the normative specs being in LC. We could in any case publish snapshots of all documents, possibly as public WDs. 17:21:56 <bijan> +1 to sandro 17:22:10 <bijan> +1 to publishing as WD 17:22:12 <alanr> that was my understanding 17:22:23 <bijan> That seems reasonable 17:22:46 <christine> several of us understood different 17:22:53 <bijan> Not just the editor, but the WG 17:23:46 <MarkusK_> Ian: I agree, but it is probably good to bring the issue up now. 17:23:17 <IanH> q? 17:23:33 <ivan> q+ 17:23:37 <ivan> ack christine 17:24:34 <MarkusK_> Christine: I am disappointed if the user-facing docs should be delayed based on delays in other documents, since NF&R is ready. 17:23:53 <IanH> q? 17:24:15 <sandro> NO ONE IS SAYING NF&R WONT BE PUBLISHED ON THIS SCHEDULE. 17:24:17 <ewallace> LC vs none-LC ness of sync'ed pub this time was not clear but not a big issue for me 17:24:21 <IanH> q? 17:24:25 <pfps> q+ 17:24:35 <IanH> ack ivan 17:24:59 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I do not understand what the problem is 17:25:03 <IanH> q? 17:25:36 <pfps> Alan's review is actually six days *early* 17:25:39 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I also think that there is a misunderstanding here; we are clearly going to publish all documents. Only the status "LC" is what is discussed now. 17:26:05 <pfps> q+ 17:26:18 <MarkusK_> Christine: My problem is that the user-facing documents are not under sufficient pressure for publication, and they are always late. 17:26:26 <bijan> Regardless of the reviews, the document doesn't have WG consensus for LC 17:26:29 <IanH> ack pfps 17:26:45 <MarkusK_> Pfps: There are diverging opinions on what should be done with NF&R. These should be discussed sometime soon. 17:26:49 <bijan> Plus, I had comments long ago on NF&R and only got a response very recently 17:27:01 <pfps> q+ to talk about rdf:text 17:27:03 <christine> when can it be solved ?? 17:27:04 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, we should take this discussion to email. We do not need to decide this now. 17:27:07 <IanH> q? 17:27:26 <IanH> q? 17:27:31 <IanH> ack pfps 17:27:31 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about rdf:text 17:28:06 <MarkusK_> I note that the Primer has been updated a lot recently; it should not be perceived as a blocker for NF&R. 17:28:07 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:28:07 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:28:44 <MarkusK_> Topic: rdf:text 17:28:38 <pfps> Pfps: rdf:text needs to be on the agenda next week if it is not ready by then 17:29:17 <IanH> q? 17:29:25 <alanr> yes 17:29:35 <alanr> then we have a problem 17:29:38 <MarkusK_> Ian: It seems we are now waiting on RIF here 17:29:40 <pfps> Pfps: rdf:text is *fine* for us (at least the parts we care about) 17:29:48 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Yes, Axel needs to come back to us. As it looks now, we can not move to LC without removing Section 5. 17:30:24 <MarkusK_> Topic: Last Call Comments 17:30:24 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Un-Acknowledged Replies 17:30:56 <MarkusK_> Ian: We are still wating for a number of acknowledgments. People are being chased to reply soon. 17:30:07 <bijan> q+ 17:30:12 <IanH> q? 17:30:15 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:30:15 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 17:31:26 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think there must be some time after which we do not have to wait any longer. 17:30:43 <pfps> we don't need a deadline, as we are going into 2nd last call 17:30:50 <pfps> but we should get them to reply ASAP 17:31:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:31:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:31:12 <IanH> q? 17:31:16 <IanH> ack bijan 17:31:23 <bijan> Not even for CR 17:31:30 <bijan> q+ 17:31:36 <MarkusK_> Ian: Is there an official process for this? 17:32:08 <IanH> q? 17:32:14 <MarkusK_> Sandro: We should at least contact all people who have not replied when publishing the next LC. We can ask them to check if their complaints are still valid for the new documents. 17:32:29 <IanH> q? 17:32:32 <IanH> ack bijan 17:33:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:33:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:33:14 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think we did all that we could for satisfying people, but we have no obligation to satisfy everybody. So I think there must be some point when we can move forward, even if the next publication is not LC but CR. 17:33:21 <IanH> q? 17:33:53 <MarkusK_> Ian: Ok, but for now sending out the email notice seems to be a good solution. 17:33:25 <bijan> I'm fine with that 17:33:58 <uli> yes 17:34:00 <alanr> q+ 17:34:04 <IanH> q? 17:34:04 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Non-Positive Acknowledgments 17:34:07 <IanH> ack alanr 17:34:16 <bijan> q+ 17:34:20 <MarkusK_> Ian: Any comments on OWLlink? 17:34:44 <MarkusK_> Alan: Yes, I will take an action to send a follow up on this, suggesting a member submission. 17:33:57 <alanr> DIG 17:34:53 <IanH> q? 17:34:55 <IanH> ack bijan 17:35:13 <MarkusK_> ACTION: Alan to follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. 17:35:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Follow up comment ML2 45 to suggest making a W3C member submission. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2009-04-08]. 17:35:18 <pfps> Ralf is not unhappy with 51a 17:35:25 <alanr> he's "dealing" 17:35:27 <alanr> :) 17:35:40 <IanH> q? 17:35:45 <MarkusK_> Ian: It also seems that 51a has been addressed as good as possible. At least Ralf stated that he is not unhappy now. 17:36:13 <MarkusK_> Topic: Technical Issues Arising 17:36:13 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges 17:36:54 <MarkusK_> Ian: Michael spotted a new issue regarding the RDF semantics on n-ary datatypes. 17:36:07 <IanH> q? 17:36:08 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 17:36:08 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 17:36:09 <pfps> q+ 17:36:10 <schneid> q+ 17:36:17 <IanH> ack pfps 17:36:23 <IanH> ack schneid 17:36:24 <pfps> q+ 17:37:04 <MarkusK_> Michael: These are really multiple issues. Regarding the RDF semantics, I am unsure how to model n-ary datatypes properly. I can write something down but there is no guideline in RDF how to do this. So is this really needed? 17:37:18 <IanH> q? 17:37:43 <IanH> q? 17:37:47 <IanH> ack pfps 17:38:12 <IanH> q? 17:38:12 <ivan> q+ 17:38:13 <MarkusK_> pfps: I think that nothing needs to be changed in the RDF semantics for nary. The nary case corresponds exactly to the unary case. 17:38:46 <IanH> q? 17:38:48 <alanr> q+ 17:38:50 <MarkusK_> Michael: There is a bug that I did not fix yet. 17:42:30 <schneid> schneid: a concrete problem of the current state of the RDF-Based Semantics is that the semantic conditions for the n-ary value restrictions are currently formally broken 17:39:03 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I think I can supply you with a one-line fix for this. 17:39:06 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:39:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan (muted), Sandro, uli (muted), Zhe (muted), IanH, bcuencagrau (muted), christine, baojie, Achille, 17:39:09 <Zakim> ... Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, zimmer 17:39:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see zimmer, schneid, jar, msmith, ewallace, alanr, Achille, baojie, bcuencagrau, Zhe, IanH, christine, MarkusK_, bmotik, ivan, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, bijan, sandro, uli, 17:39:12 <Zakim> ... trackbot 17:39:32 <MarkusK_> Michael: Ok, then there are two further issues I have. One is regarding conformance: does a conformant tool need to support reasoning with naries? 17:40:05 <IanH> q? 17:40:18 <MarkusK_> Ian: No, nary is an extension that is not mandatory for conformance. It was never intended to be mandatory. 17:40:24 <pfps> isn't this kind of thing much better in email? 17:40:27 <IanH> ack ivan 17:40:41 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:40:41 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:41:11 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I could not find it in the Conformance document that nary is not required. 17:41:49 <MarkusK_> Ian: It might be implicit there. Isn't it that the conformance document refers to OWL ontologies, and that this term only needs to include unary datatypes only? 17:41:24 <alanr> syntax says: "All data ranges explicitly supported by this specification are unary" 17:42:24 <alanr> couldn't hurt to say so one more time 17:42:28 <IanH> q? 17:42:34 <IanH> ack alanr 17:42:40 <MarkusK_> Ivan: Maybe we should be more explicit about this. 17:42:49 <ivan> q+ 17:43:19 <MarkusK_> Alan: I also believe that it is clear that the RDF semantics does not need to deal with nary dataypes, since the according document is a note only. Nary datatypes are clearly an optional extension. 17:43:14 <schneid> no, thats not the point! 17:43:28 <bijan> +1 to alanr 17:43:29 <schneid> q+ 17:43:34 <IanH> q? 17:43:37 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 17:43:37 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 17:43:37 <IanH> ack ivan 17:43:52 <bmotik> q+ 17:43:56 <MarkusK_> Alan: But we could still make this explicit in the conformance document. 17:44:04 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 17:45:08 <MarkusK_> – Scribe lost audio – 17:45:13 <sandro> understood MarkusK_ 17:44:46 <msmith> The relevant statement in conformance about datatypes is at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance_and_Test_Cases#Datatype_Map_Conformance 17:44:58 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 17:44:58 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 17:45:23 <pfps> RDF-Based Semantics says: 17:45:25 <pfps> if 17:45:27 <pfps> s sequence of p1 , … , pn ∈ IR , 17:45:28 <pfps> 〈 z , c 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:someValuesFrom)) , 17:45:30 <pfps> 〈 z , s 〉 ∈ IEXT(I(owl:onProperties)) p1 , … , pn ∈ IP , 17:45:31 <pfps> then 17:45:33 <pfps> ICEXT(z) = { x | ∃ y1 , … , yn : 〈 x , yk 〉 ∈ IEXT(pk) for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n and 〈 y1 , … , yn 〉 ∈ ICEXT(c) } 17:45:35 <pfps> This is perfectly OK. C is a class - it instances can be *anything*, 17:45:36 <pfps> including tuples. 17:45:39 <IanH> q? 17:45:42 <IanH> ack schneid 17:46:09 <pfps> and complements work fine as well 17:46:17 <alanr> would it help to move the nary in direct semantics to the note? 17:46:27 <alanr> q+ 17:46:31 <pfps> q+ 17:46:35 <sandro> schnei: In both semantics documents, there are concrete semantics for this n-ary stuff. Something is said about complements of nary, nary data ranges, ... there is something said about these value description. These are in. The quesiton is, are these normative? Do thay have to be supported by every conformant reasoner? 17:46:57 <sandro> ian: Maybe this shouldn't be in the Direct Semantics? 17:47:02 <IanH> q? 17:47:09 <sandro> schneid: If it's in one, it should be in both, yes? 17:47:13 <IanH> ack bmotik 17:47:49 <schneid> q+ 17:48:00 <sandro> bmotik: No conformant reasoner needs to do anything with any n-ary stuff. From the syntax spec alone, you can't do anything with the hooks. The spec says all datatypes are arity 1. So no conformant reasoner needs to implement that. 17:47:30 <bijan> Since they have no predicates! 17:48:08 <IanH> q? 17:48:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:48:12 <MarkusK_> – Scribe is back – 17:48:14 <sandro> bmotik: I don't see why the RDF-based semantics is worried about that. 17:48:20 <IanH> q? 17:48:47 <sandro> schneid: Just to give you an idea what I'm talking about ... You can do calculations with combinations of n-ary value restrictions, ... 17:48:51 <IanH> q? 17:48:56 <MarkusK_> Michael: You can do calculation with nary datatypes without knowing about data ranges 17:48:56 <sandro> bmotik: But you don't have any names. That's the point. 17:49:10 <IanH> q? 17:49:13 <IanH> ack alanr 17:49:15 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:49:15 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:49:21 <MarkusK_> Michael: Ok, then that is a different issue. 17:49:30 <IanH> q? 17:49:34 <IanH> ack pfps 17:49:46 <MarkusK_> Alan: I was wondering if this could be solved by moving the conditions on direct semantics for naries into the nary note. Then the note would be self-contained. 17:50:15 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I do not know why we need to discuss this. The documents seem to be in good shape. I do not see that any of the documents currently needs changing to be compatible with nary datatypes at all. 17:50:13 <bijan> er 17:50:14 <IanH> q? 17:50:19 <bijan> q+ to say why moving into the note is not a great idea 17:50:19 <IanH> ack schneid 17:50:19 <schneid> All <p1,p2>.D1 and All<p1,p2>.D2 iff All <p1,p2>.(D1 & D2) 17:50:26 <schneid> q- 17:50:27 <alanr> q? 17:50:31 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 17:50:31 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan 17:50:31 <IanH> ack bijan 17:50:32 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to say why moving into the note is not a great idea 17:51:23 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I thought about Alan's suggestion. The one reason why I would not want to do this is that the note is just one specific instance of a possible nary extension. The general hook in the specs allows other extensions, too. This is why I would like to keep this hook in the specs. 17:51:24 <schneid> <"a","b> in { 1, 2 } 17:51:25 <ivan> +1 to bijan 17:51:37 <bijan> zakim, mute me 17:51:37 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 17:51:39 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 17:51:39 <Zakim> schneid was not muted, schneid 17:51:44 <IanH> q? 17:51:58 <pfps> q+ 17:52:07 <IanH> ack pfps 17:52:12 <MarkusK_> Ian: Michael, can you comment on the notes you pasted in IRC. 17:52:37 <MarkusK_> Michael: Well, it was an example to illustrate that there is a bug in the RDF semantics that is inacceptible. 17:52:47 <schneid> ok 17:52:49 <bijan> If there's a bug, let's fix it 17:52:50 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:52:50 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 17:52:53 <pfps> I need a demonstration of the bug 17:52:55 <MarkusK_> Pfps: I think this is wrong, technically. There is no problem. 17:53:09 <MarkusK_> Ian: I think this discussion needs to be continued via email. 17:53:08 <ivan> +1 17:53:12 <bijan> But I think the current setup is the right one 17:53:17 <schneid> The set theories underlying RDF-Based Semantics and Direct Semantics are equal 17:53:21 <IanH> q? 17:53:37 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: xsd:dateTime 17:53:37 <ivan> zakim, mute me 17:53:37 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 17:53:48 <IanH> q? 17:53:55 <alanr> q? 17:53:58 <alanr> q+ 17:54:06 <MarkusK_> Ian: Boris sent an email last week, stating that it might be useful to include xsd:dateTime now, too. There was some discussion already. 17:54:06 <IanH> q? 17:54:09 <IanH> ack alanr 17:54:14 <ewallace> q+ 17:54:24 <IanH> ack ewallace 17:54:36 <MarkusK_> Ewallace: I sent an email today regarding this issue. The question at hand is whether we want to support full xsd:dateTime. I am okay with Boris' proposal, but I want to see the consequences. I still would like to have a look at the recent changes for xsd:dateTimeStamp in the specs 17:54:51 <bmotik> q+ 17:55:19 <alanr> q? 17:55:23 <alanr> q+ alanr 17:55:29 <IanH> q? 17:55:48 <IanH> q? 17:56:06 <IanH> ack bmotik 17:56:40 <MarkusK_> Ian: So should we defer this decision to next week? 17:56:52 <MarkusK_> Ewallace: Maybe Boris can clarify right now. 17:57:16 <IanH> q? 17:57:18 <pfps> sounds good to me 17:57:21 <MarkusK_> Boris: When I did the change for xsd:dateTimeStamp, I noticed that only one more bullet point would be needed to include xsd:dateTime as well. And there needs to be some statement of what the facets are for xsd:dateTime. And I would like to include the new type in all profiles that support xsd:dateTimeStamp as well. 17:57:21 <IanH> ack alanr 17:58:05 <pfps> q+ 17:58:49 <MarkusK_> Alan: There might be some open issues regarding the facets. Some facets may have rather confusing effects. I also think that there is no very strong motivation to include this data type. 17:58:14 <ewallace> Alan raises a point I made in today's email 17:58:15 <bmotik> q+ 17:58:17 <IanH> q? 17:58:35 <schneid> zakim, mute me 17:58:35 <Zakim> schneid was already muted, schneid 17:58:41 <IanH> q? 17:58:56 <IanH> ack pfps 17:59:30 <ewallace> Where? 17:59:50 <MarkusK_> Pfps: The earlier issue was that values without time zones did not fit at all into the earlier semantics. This issue has been solved by the recent changes. You can still use timezoned values, but also non-timezoned values. Issues and some confusion mainly arises when comparing these two kinds. 18:00:24 <IanH> ack bmotik 18:00:28 <alanr> in variance with xml schema, bijan 18:00:45 <ewallace> several? 1681 I think. 18:00:56 <IanH> q? 18:01:08 <ewallace> q+ 18:01:14 <MarkusK_> Boris: I hope that the XML Schema group comes up with a notion of comparability that is acceptable to us. If not, then we should complain with them. I think the change is well-motivated by many ontologies that are now using xsd:dateTime already. 18:01:58 <MarkusK_> Markus: +1 to Boris 18:01:25 <IanH> ack ewallace 18:01:30 <IanH> q? 18:01:37 <IanH> q? 18:01:38 <pfps> +1 to adding, and adding an example 18:02:06 <christine> christine has joined #owl 18:02:41 <IanH> q? 18:02:43 <MarkusK_> Ian: So, Evan, you are basically happy introducing dateTime? 18:03:12 <IanH> q? 18:03:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype 18:03:24 <pfps> +1 ALU 18:03:28 <msmith> +1 18:03:29 <uli> +1 18:03:30 <MarkusK_> Markus: +1 18:03:33 <bijan> +1 18:03:35 <ivan> +1 18:03:38 <bmotik> +1 18:03:43 <zimmer> +1 18:03:43 <alanr> -.99 science commons (not formally objecting) 18:03:44 <ewallace> +1 (with additional text per email discussion) 18:03:45 <Achille> +1 18:03:48 <bcuencagrau> +1 18:03:50 <christine> +1 18:04:04 <sandro> +1 18:04:07 <Zhe> 0 18:04:12 <IanH> RESOLVED: OWL 2 will include xsd:dateTime datatype 18:04:47 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 18:04:47 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 18:11:26 <bmotik> I've added the formal part of xsd:dateTime to both Profiles and the Syntax. I'll add an example or two later this week. 18:05:08 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Documentation for Differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2 18:05:06 <bijan> q+ 18:05:08 <MarkusK_> q+ 18:05:09 <ivan> q+ 18:05:11 <IanH> q? 18:05:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:05:14 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 18:05:21 <sandro> q+ 18:05:34 <MarkusK_> Ian: There is currently some duplication of changes from OWL 1 to OWL 2 in various documents. Is this useful or should this be consolidated somewhere? 18:06:09 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I think it should be in one document. I think a list of changes and features would be better than a complete explanation. 18:06:30 <ewallace> an enumeration? 18:06:30 <IanH> ack MarkusK_ 18:06:32 <alanr> q? 18:09:03 <MarkusK_> Markus: The primer already contains a detailed explanation of changes with examples, and I would not want to drop this. 18:16:05 <MarkusK_> Section in the Primer: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Guide_to_OWL_2_for_OWL_1_users 18:06:37 <IanH> ack bijan 18:06:39 <uli> yes 18:06:45 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:06:45 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:07:05 <bijan> q+ 18:07:10 <christine> we cannot hear you 18:07:18 <bijan> I want only *one* list 18:07:18 <ewallace> That is what NF&R is for 18:07:20 <bijan> I can hear you 18:07:23 <IanH> q? 18:07:42 <bijan> I object to it 18:08:07 <IanH> ack ivan 18:08:07 <ivan> ack ivan 18:09:49 <MarkusK_> Ivan: I think that this content should not be in the Primer. In particular, the NF&R is a document that is especially dedicated to explaining the changes. We should not duplicate this. 18:08:42 <MarkusK_> q+ 18:08:51 <IanH> qq? 18:08:53 <IanH> q? 18:09:11 <bijan> Overview is a good place 18:09:13 <christine> +q 18:09:31 <ewallace> +1 to Ivan's position 18:09:37 <IanH> ack sandro 18:09:38 <christine> +1 18:10:02 <ewallace> OK with an enumeration of owl1-owl2 delta somewhere 18:10:15 <bijan> +1 to ewallace 18:10:54 <schneid> q+ 18:11:11 <IanH> ack bijan 18:11:26 <alanr> sandro, NF&R. File under R 18:11:39 <IanH> q? 18:11:58 <uli> +1 for leaving out 'changes to OWL 1' from Primer 18:11:59 <IanH> q? 18:12:13 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I disagree with Markus because the Primer should introduce the language as it is, but not be mainly a transitional document. 18:12:26 <sandro> bijan: The primer should be an introduction for people coming new to OWL 2 -- there shouldn't be much spent on transitional material. 18:12:16 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:12:16 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:12:23 <MarkusK_> q+ to clarify his viewpoint 18:12:38 <IanH> q? 18:12:45 <christine> +q 18:13:09 <IanH> ack MarkusK_ 18:13:09 <Zakim> MarkusK_, you wanted to clarify his viewpoint 18:13:43 <MarkusK_> Ian: We should keep this discussion short. 18:13:46 <sandro> MarkusK_: I don't really care where the transitional content, currently in an appendix of the primer, lives, but I think it would be a real shame to drop it. 18:14:21 <MarkusK_> Markus: I would like to clarify my point: I do not think that the content that is now in the Primer needs to be in the Primer appendix that it is in now. I just think that this content is valuable to some people, and it should be placed *somewhere* instead of being dropped. 18:13:29 <IanH> q? 18:13:39 <bijan> No doubt that is is useful to a certain audience ... but we can put it elsewhere ... wiki, webont wiki, etc. 18:14:05 <bijan> ? I think the short list should be in the overview :) 18:14:19 <schneid> zakim, unmute me 18:14:19 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted 18:14:19 <IanH> q? 18:14:25 <ivan> ack christine 18:14:25 <IanH> ack christine 18:14:23 <sandro> christine: I think the right place for all this stuff is NF&R, and I'm hearing most other folks agreeing. 18:15:14 <MarkusK_> Christine: I think the Primer should point to NF&R for these changes. 18:14:28 <schneid> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Changes_from_the_OWL_RDF-Compatible_Semantics_.28Informative.29 18:14:29 <IanH> q? 18:14:34 <IanH> ack schneid 18:14:56 <sandro> schneid: The RDF-Based Semantics has already a section listing, very technically, the differences from OWL 1. 18:16:29 <schneid> schneid: if something of the RDF-Based Semantics difference should go to a userfacing document, then only one line of high level explanation, with a link to the RDF-Based Semantics: because it is very technical and RDF specific in most cases 18:15:22 <IanH> q? 18:15:31 <alanr> q+ 18:15:37 <IanH> q? 18:15:43 <IanH> ack alanr 18:15:58 <pfps> q+ 18:16:00 <pfps> q- 18:16:05 <IanH> q? 18:16:48 <sandro> q+ 18:16:50 <bijan> q+ 18:16:53 <pfps> q+ 18:17:00 <IanH> q? 18:17:15 <MarkusK_> Topic: Open Issues 18:17:15 <MarkusK_> Subtopic: Issue 146 18:16:05 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Apr/0012.html 18:17:28 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:17:28 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted 18:17:29 <IanH> q? 18:17:33 <IanH> ack sandro 18:18:08 <IanH> q? 18:18:20 <MarkusK_> Alan: I sent a proposal via email. 18:19:00 <alanr_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0009.html 18:18:28 <IanH> ack bijan 18:18:30 <IanH> q? 18:18:52 <alanr_> alanr_ has joined #owl 18:18:57 <MarkusK_> Sandro: I agree that this is a long-standing issue in the Semantic Web architecture. But I think there are problems with the current proposal as I also mentioned in my emails. 18:19:16 <alanr_> we aren't make Manch part of the language yet, are we? It's a note. 18:19:20 <alanr_> q? 18:19:37 <IanH> ack pfps 18:20:38 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I agree that this is a problem; but there are practical solutions that people use right now already. 18:19:40 <sandro> bijan: Like Sandro, I think the tool layer is adequate if not ideal for solving this. If some real solution comes along later, great. 18:19:42 <IanH> q? 18:19:43 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:19:43 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:19:54 <alanr_> q+ 18:19:57 <uli> q+ 18:20:23 <IanH> ack alanr_ 18:20:44 <sandro> pfps: If you wanted to dump an ontology with and without labels, with all the info needed to go both ways, they'd both be a lot more complicated. 18:21:03 <ivan> q+ 18:21:05 <pfps> everything agrees that label display is nice 18:21:05 <bijan> q+ 18:21:06 <IanH> q? 18:21:11 <sandro> q+ to ask if OBO is making these labels unique and stable, then why don't they just make them part of the IRIs? 18:21:23 <IanH> ack uli 18:21:24 <uli> ack /me 18:21:40 <MarkusK_> Alan: I did not mean this to be a mandatory change but rather a proposal to the community on how to solve this problem. 18:21:46 <alanr_> q+ 18:22:00 <MarkusK_> Uli: I would rather like to see a solution that uses SKOS. 18:22:02 <sandro> uli: use SKOS instead -- it has the formalization for handling labels. 18:22:18 <sandro> alan: That's reasonable, but Alan Rector told me that people should have a choice of which the labels are. 18:22:45 <sandro> alan: Rector doesn't want to be tied to SKOS. 18:22:41 <bijan> Manchester, including Alan Rector, does not support this proposal 18:22:49 <IanH> ack ivan 18:23:00 <alanr_> q- 18:23:01 <uli> zakim, mute me 18:23:02 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 18:23:06 <Zakim> -Alan 18:23:16 <IanH> q? 18:23:20 <alanr_> hang on calling back in 18:23:26 <MarkusK_> Ian: We should at least get a straw poll on this issue. There are many people on the queue already. 18:23:32 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg 18:23:53 <IanH> q? 18:23:56 <MarkusK_> Ivan: My point is that solving this issue in one single serialization makes me uneasy. Even if this is a note, I do not think we should single out Manchester syntax here. 18:24:16 <sandro> ivan: I am uneasy solving this in one serialization --- it ought to be solved in all of them, if that were possible. 18:24:08 <bijan> zakim, unmute me 18:24:08 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted 18:24:11 <IanH> ack bijan 18:24:14 <IanH> q? 18:24:31 <sandro> q- 18:24:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me 18:24:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted 18:24:38 <IanH> q? 18:24:55 <MarkusK_> Bijan: I do not want to put in this proposal, since I feel that there is no sufficient consensus that this is the right approach to solve the problem. 18:25:25 <bijan> I suggest that alan propose it in other form. If people get behind it, we can always add an extension. 18:25:26 <MarkusK_> Ian: Alan, would you lie in the road if we reject your proposal? 18:25:26 <MarkusK_> Alan: No, but I would, obviously, be strongly opposed. 18:25:29 <IanH> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs 18:25:34 <ewallace> +0 18:25:35 <bijan> +1 18:25:36 <pfps> +1 ALU 18:25:37 <sandro> +1 18:25:38 <msmith> +1 18:25:39 <uli> +1 18:25:40 <ivan> +1 18:25:42 <bcuencagrau> 0 18:25:44 <Zhe> +0 18:25:44 <MarkusK_> Markus: +0 18:25:45 <schneid> +1 18:25:45 <christine> 0 18:25:47 <Achille> 0 18:25:49 <alanr_> -.99 (not formally objecting) 18:25:55 <zimmer> 0 18:25:59 <baojie> 0 18:26:00 <bmotik> +1 18:26:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax will-not specify how to use labels in addition to/instead of entity URIs 18:27:04 <uli> alanr_, it looks as if http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secskosspecialization says that you can extend labels 18:26:39 <MarkusK_> Ian: In fact, we have some time left. 18:26:45 <pfps> q+ 18:26:48 <IanH> q? 18:26:52 <IanH> ack pfps 18:26:52 <MarkusK_> Topic: Test Cases 18:26:52 <MarkusK_> Ian: It is probably not needed to discuss test cases? 18:26:56 <sandro> q+ 18:27:02 <IanH> ack sandro 18:27:09 <MarkusK_> Pfps: Some tests may need cleanup after the recent changes of the functional syntax. 18:27:12 <msmith> q+ to address both 18:27:17 <MarkusK_> q+ 18:27:21 <MarkusK_> q- 18:27:22 <IanH> ack msmith 18:27:23 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to address both 18:27:26 <IanH> q? 18:27:37 <pfps> Good 18:27:43 <MarkusK_> Sandro: Is the machinery for publicly gathering tests working well? 18:28:05 <IanH> q? 18:28:18 <IanH> q? 18:28:25 <schneid> zakim, mute me 18:28:25 <Zakim> schneid was already muted, schneid 18:28:30 <MarkusK_> msmith: There is already a test harness, but nobody has stepped forward to use it so far. 18:28:31 <IanH> q? 18:29:00 <bijan> You sure did 18:29:07 <IanH> q? 18:29:19 <MarkusK_> Ian: Birte Glimm at Oxford is working on getting Hermit tested based on this harness. 18:29:22 <sandro> effective april 1, Ian is moving back to Manchester! 18:29:23 <MarkusK_> Topic: Additional Other Business 18:29:23 <MarkusK_> Ian: AOB? 18:29:31 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg 18:29:32 <Zhe> bye 18:29:32 <alanr_> bye 18:29:32 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace 18:29:32 <Zakim> -bmotik 18:29:34 <Zakim> -bijan 18:29:34 <Zakim> -Ivan 18:29:34 <Zakim> -baojie 18:29:35 <Zakim> -msmith 18:29:35 <ivan> ivan has left #owl 18:29:35 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:29:35 <zimmer> bye 18:29:37 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 18:29:40 <Zakim> -Zhe 18:29:42 <Zakim> -zimmer 18:29:44 <Zakim> -jar 18:29:46 <Zakim> -IanH 18:29:48 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 18:29:50 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:29:52 <Zakim> -christine 18:29:54 <Zakim> -uli 18:29:59 <Zakim> -schneid 18:30:06 <jar> jar has left #owl 18:30:06 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public 18:30:14 <uli> bye 18:30:19 <Zakim> -Achille 18:30:20 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 18:30:21 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan, bmotik, Ivan, MarkusK_, Sandro, christine, uli, Zhe, IanH, baojie, bcuencagrau, Achille, Alan, Evan_Wallace, msmith, schneid, jar, 18:30:24 <Zakim> ... zimmer, Alan_Ruttenberg 18:30:59 <uli> uli has left #owl 20:29:55 <pfps> pfps has left #owl 20:57:52 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 20:58:02 <alanr> zakim, pointer 20:58:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pointer', alanr 20:58:06 <alanr> rrsagent, pointer 20:58:06 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/01-owl-irc#T20-58-06 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000799