Chatlog 2009-04-08

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<ScribeNick> PRESENT: Bijan Parsia, Peter (pfps) Patel-Schneider, Boris Motik, Antoine (zimmer) Zimmermann, Ian Horrocks, Jeff Pan, Markus Krötzsch, Alan (alanr) Ruttenberg, Uli Sattler, Sandro Hawke, Rinke Hoekstra, Zhe Wu, Bernardo (bcuencag2) Cuenca Grau, Achille Fokoue, Ivan Herman, Evan Wallace, Christine Golbreich, Mike Smith, Jie (baojie) Bao
17:04:37 <ScribeNick> REGRETS: Elisa Kendall, Michael Schneider 
17:04:37 <ScribeNick> CHAIR: Alan Ruttenberg
17:04:37 <JeffP> ScribeNick: JeffP
17:04:37 <JeffP> subtopic: Agenda amendments?
17:05:06 <JeffP> alanr: if we have time, maybe also cover test annotations
17:05:23 <pfps> minutes OK
17:05:26 <alanr> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (1 April)
17:05:28 <Rinke> +1
17:05:41 <uli> +1
17:05:44 <alanr> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (1 April)
17:05:56 <JeffP> subtopic: Action items status 
17:06:18 <JeffP> subsubtopic: Pending Review Actions
17:06:30 <JeffP> subsubtopic: Due and overdue Actions
17:06:47 <bijan> <http://www.w3.org/mid/49DC3E4D.2020501@sandsoft.com>?
17:07:07 <alanr> PROPOSED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements
17:07:28 <ewallace> she did
17:08:12 <JeffP> alanr: any comments?
17:08:16 <sandro>  alan: Bijan will send his more-detailed comments as personal comments.
17:08:40 <JeffP> bijan: any objection on more detailed comments?
17:08:47 <sandro> -0  it seems a little rude to not explain ourselves, but I agree it's not worth our time
17:09:52 <sandro>  sandro: I should have read Bijan's comment, and it would be nice to have a WG response, but I think we're a little too busy right now.
17:10:02 <JeffP> IanH: it is reasonable to send personal comments
17:10:07 <alanr> +1
17:10:26 <JeffP> ... it will be a pity to throw it away
17:10:37 <JeffP> ... WG does not have time to review it
17:12:18 <sandro> action: sandro send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them.
17:12:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Send a comment to the CURIE folks about us not using them. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-04-15].
17:12:23 <alanr> PROPOSED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements, with Sandro's fixup to be more friendly.
17:12:30 <bijan> +1
17:12:30 <alanr> +1
17:12:32 <sandro> +0
17:12:33 <IanH> +1
17:12:33 <ivan> 1
17:12:36 <Zhe> +0
17:12:37 <Achille> 0
17:12:38 <uli> +1
17:12:38 <ewallace> +1
17:12:39 <JeffP> +1
17:12:40 <Rinke> +1
17:12:40 <msmith> +1
17:12:40 <MarkusK_> +1
17:12:41 <pfps> +0
17:12:46 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:12:47 <bmotik> +1
17:12:50 <alanr> RESOLVED: WG will send short CR comment to the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group and XHTML 2 Working Group of the form "we looked at the CURIE draft, but came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements, with Sandro's fixup to be more friendly.
17:12:51 <zimmer> +!
17:13:49 <JeffP> ivan: I won't be around till next Wed
17:14:27 <JeffP> Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:14:48 <JeffP> subtopic: Primer now ready for review -- thanks to Markus, Pascal & Sebastian 
17:15:07 <JeffP> alanr: need more reviewers
17:15:18 <MarkusK_> ok, I did not see Chrsitine's review yet
17:15:44 <uli> too soon
17:16:04 <IanH> I think Christine means short notice
17:16:09 <pfps> I'm confused, what review is being discussed?
17:16:14 <bijan> It's not ready as a WD?
17:16:15 <alanr> primer
17:16:19 <JeffP> christine: I could review it if it is not too urgent
17:16:43 <JeffP> ... I like Bijan's version
17:16:44 <bijan> I'm not surprised! Christine is fair.
17:17:03 <JeffP> ... anyway, I need more time
17:17:05 <IanH> Just shows that you can't please all of the people all of the time :-)
17:17:24 <MarkusK_> Actually, we tried to not "throw away" content, but mostly restructure it. I need to see detailed comments.
17:18:02 <baojie> +1
17:18:30 <JeffP> Bijan: will we publish Primer soon?
17:18:44 <bijan> E.g., after this publicaiton, we could revert entirely
17:18:46 <bijan> Nothing blocks us
17:18:49 <JeffP> Ivan: publish as a draft is fine with me
17:18:59 <christine> for what reason to publish it now ?
17:19:15 <pfps> Primer is OK to publish as WD
17:19:18 <JeffP> alanr: I notice that we spent less time on this doc than others
17:19:35 <bijan> Just to get all publishing in synch. Publishing is cheap so we might as well.
17:19:42 <Rinke> +1 to publishing as draft, because the previous WD was of 11 April 2008
17:19:58 <JeffP> MarkusK: we are still working on the doc
17:20:20 <bijan> My default is to publish things as WDs often.
17:20:27 <pfps> Has anyone seen a review by Christine on Primer?
17:20:31 <JeffP> christine: why do we need to publish it now?
17:21:08 <JeffP> alanr: in the f2f, I agreed that we publish the docs at the same time
17:21:09 <Rinke> What about the reviews by Deborah and Michel... are they in yet? 
17:21:29 <JeffP> christine: I don't agree to publish it now
17:21:36 <christine> was there reviewers assigned already ?
17:21:45 <MarkusK_> q+ re missing features and syntax
17:21:54 <uli> I would think that missing features in Primer is fine! It doesn't (and shouldn't) be comprehensive!
17:22:07 <ewallace> Primer is not intended to be comprehensive for language features.
17:22:17 <bijan> Indeed!
17:22:21 <Rinke> I agree with Evan... 
17:22:22 <JeffP> ivan: the previous version was published one year ago
17:22:28 <JeffP> ... i.e. a long time ago
17:22:49 <bijan> I'm consistent: Publish early and often. There's should be no bar to pubbing a wd
17:22:55 <JeffP> ... we need to prove to the community that this work is as serious as others
17:23:23 <IanH> +1 to Ivan
17:23:43 <JeffP> alanr: we could postpone the vote till next week
17:23:53 <JeffP> Markus: agree with Ivan
17:24:43 <JeffP> christine: I agree with Ivan's comment
17:24:56 <JeffP> ... that's the reason that we should not publish it now
17:25:04 <JeffP> ... as we concern the quality of the doc
17:25:20 <JeffP> ... otherwise, it could give bad impression 
17:25:23 <sandro> (I have a compromise for Christine)
17:25:46 <JeffP> Bijan: I appreciate both points
17:25:56 <JeffP> ... the point is that WD is cheap
17:26:00 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan
17:26:08 <JeffP> ... that's my default
17:26:18 <sandro> It's not unwritten.  It's a rule.
17:26:27 <bijan> Er...Ivan is confused: It's a rule...the heartbeat rule
17:26:30 <ewallace> Heartbeat?
17:26:30 <JeffP> Ivan: there is a rule that each group should publish something every three months
17:26:32 <sandro> (but it can be ANY wd.)
17:26:34 <bijan> And it's not per document, it's for the group
17:26:43 <bijan> It's not a big deal eithe rway
17:27:18 <ewallace> Didn't Sandro have a compromise to propose?
17:27:25 <MarkusK_> Could we have an action for Christine to send an email with the issues she perceives to be blocking publication?
17:27:26 <sandro> I'm waiting patiently
17:27:29 <JeffP> alanr: shall we vote for it next week?
17:27:33 <bijan> There is no rule that we need to publish the primer
17:27:36 <bijan> at this time
17:27:48 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to address Christine's point about present scope and structure
17:27:55 <JeffP> Jie: can we add anchors into the docs?
17:28:18 <MarkusK_> yes, we can add more anchors. I though of this before, too.
17:28:47 <bijan> +1 to sandro
17:28:51 <MarkusK_> Jie, if you have particular subjects for which you need anchors, please sent an email.
17:28:53 <baojie> Markus: the current available "anchors" are in
17:28:56 <baojie> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide
17:28:57 <JeffP> sandro: it is only  a WD 
17:29:05 <MarkusK_> Jie, ok
17:29:38 <sandro> sandro: Let's add an editor's note saying we're looking for feedback on this different style.
17:29:39 <baojie> However, many of them are not very fine-grained, better to have anchor to each feature
17:29:46 <bijan> Another ednote!
17:29:50 <Rinke> I don't think it's fair to keep Markus et al. in the dark on the publication track. If we don't publish next week, they could have spent their effort more usefully on other documents.
17:29:50 <JeffP> christine: still have some concern
17:30:21 <sandro> alan: Let's do the ednote sandro suggests
17:30:22 <ewallace> It looks like the appendix is gone.
17:30:34 <JeffP> ... at this point we should remove the section
17:30:45 <bijan> Sounds good!
17:30:57 <JeffP> MarkusK: we can remove the Appendic section if people oppose
17:30:57 <sandro> markus: agreed -- we're removing appendix.
17:31:30 <JeffP> bijan: is this the only concern from christine?
17:32:03 <MarkusK_> The OWL-1-changes appendix is not removed yet; it will be removed for publication.
17:32:15 <JeffP> alanr: Jie, christine what do you think?
17:32:27 <JeffP> Jie: put it off
17:32:30 <MarkusK_> Jie, could you also send an email with your main concerns?
17:32:46 <JeffP> ... I mean put off the vote
17:32:53 <bijan> Ok, we're putting off. Thanks alan
17:33:00 <baojie> Markus: will do
17:33:22 <MarkusK_> Christine,  we will publish this outside of W3C space
17:33:28 <JeffP> alanr: christine, what is your position about Primer, vote publication now or next week?
17:33:33 <JeffP> christine: up to you  
17:33:34 <bijan> Yep
17:33:35 <MarkusK_> ... it wil not go into any document or note of the WG.
17:33:41 <JeffP> alanr: easy to postpone
17:34:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions)
17:34:25 <JeffP> subtopic: Publication Schedule
17:34:37 <pfps> are there any outstanding review discussions?
17:34:56 <JeffP> alanr: I am impressed by the reviews and responses
17:35:14 <IanH> +1 -- huge kudos due to whole WG for the amount and quality of work over the past couple of weeks!
17:35:35 <bijan> Mike Grove has approved the XML Syntax as well
17:35:47 <msmith> ... assuming you are ok with T&C
17:36:10 <JeffP> Ivan: Michael says he didn't address one of the reviews
17:36:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions)
17:36:15 <bijan> * RDF-Based Semantics review by Zhe:
17:36:15 <bijan>   I have sent a complete response as of today (late), but no answer yet 
17:37:03 <sandro> only outstanding review discussions we know of is Zhe's to Michael.
17:37:04 <JeffP> Zhe: I didn't read the email yet
17:37:05 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
17:37:06 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:37:06 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:37:06 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:37:07 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:37:07 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam)
17:37:07 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:37:09 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:37:09 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:37:13 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:37:14 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen)
17:37:15 <ewallace> 0
17:37:20 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:37:23 <Zhe> +1
17:37:27 <baojie> +1
17:37:31 <alanr> RESOLVED: SS&FS, Mapping to RDF, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance & Test Cases, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts (modulo outstanding review discussions)
17:37:39 <bijan> +1 Manchester
17:37:40 <sandro> Awesome work, folks.
17:37:45 <ivan> +1
17:37:53 <christine> +1
17:38:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: Document Overview, NF&R, QRG are ready for publication as OWD (modulo outstanding review discussions)
17:38:30 <bijan> Please, can we not use OWD
17:38:33 <bijan> WD is sufficent
17:38:35 <bijan> And standadrd
17:38:39 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:38:43 <baojie> +1 RPI
17:38:45 <ewallace> +1
17:38:47 <alanr> +1 Science Commons
17:38:48 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:38:49 <christine> +1
17:38:49 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE
17:38:49 <bijan> +1 Manchester
17:38:50 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI
17:38:50 <Achille> +1
17:38:51 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:38:55 <ivan> +1 w3c
17:39:01 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam)
17:39:03 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:39:05 <JeffP> +1 (Aberdeen)
17:39:11 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:39:40 <sandro> OWD == Ordinary Working Draft (WD that is not FPWD or LCWD)
17:39:46 <alanr> RESOLVED: Document Overview, NF&R, QRG are ready for publication as OWD (modulo outstanding review discussions)
17:39:54 <sandro> woo hoo.  :-)
17:40:16 <sandro> yeah, probably soon, peter.
17:40:18 <ivan> clap clap clap clap
17:40:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax and Data Range Extension are ready for publication as OWD
17:40:44 <ewallace> Is Data Range Extension what formerly called N-ary?
17:40:49 <bijan> Yes
17:40:50 <sandro> yes, ewallace 
17:40:52 <alanr> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for OWD and Data Range Extension is read for FPWD
17:41:01 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
17:41:03 <ivan> s/read /ready /
17:41:03 <bijan> Data Range Extension: Linear (In)Equations
17:41:04 <baojie> 0
17:41:04 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:41:08 <ivan> +1 w3c
17:41:08 <bijan> +1 Manchester
17:41:09 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen)
17:41:12 <ewallace> +1 NIST
17:41:13 <alanr> +1 Science Commons
17:41:13 <Zhe> 0 ORACLE
17:41:14 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI
17:41:16 <christine> 0
17:41:17 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:41:18 <zimmer> 0 DERI
17:41:18 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam)
17:41:18 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:41:48 <alanr> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for OWD and Data Range Extension is read for FPWD
17:42:15 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:text is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft
17:42:40 <bijan> +1 Manchester
17:42:42 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:42:42 <baojie> +1 RPI
17:42:43 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:42:43 <alanr> +1 Science Commons
17:42:47 <zimmer> 0
17:42:48 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen)
17:42:50 <Achille> 0
17:42:52 <Rinke> +1 (University of Amsterdam)
17:42:53 <Zhe> +1 Oracle
17:42:54 <ewallace> +1
17:42:55 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:42:58 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:43:00 <christine> +1
17:43:02 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI
17:43:19 <alanr> RESOLVED: rdf:text is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft
17:43:29 <IanH> Thanks to everyone! (Virtual) drinks are on me :-)
17:43:41 <JeffP> :-)
17:43:48 <uli> feierabend!
17:43:58 <JeffP> Topic: (Technical) Issues Arising
17:44:13 <alanr> PROPOSED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI
17:44:14 <JeffP> subtopic: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges (see Michael's email) 
17:45:14 <JeffP> subtopic: owl:versionInfo (see Uli's email and thread) 
17:45:18 <alanr> PROPOSED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI
17:45:21 <sandro> sandro: So these changes are considered part of the "modulo open reviews", since we're already at LC?
17:45:24 <pfps> This is one of the "modulos".  Fortunately all changes for these are very localised.
17:45:28 <Rinke> +1 
17:45:29 <baojie> +1
17:45:29 <zimmer> +1
17:45:30 <MarkusK_> +1
17:45:30 <uli> +1
17:45:30 <alanr> +1 Science Commons
17:45:31 <ivan> 0
17:45:31 <JeffP> +1
17:45:34 <ewallace> 0
17:45:34 <Achille> +1
17:45:35 <pfps> +1
17:45:35 <Zhe> 0
17:45:38 <christine> 0
17:45:45 <msmith> 0
17:45:45 <bijan> +1
17:45:53 <alanr> RESOLVED: owl:versionIRI will be used to store the version IRI
17:45:56 <sandro> 0
17:45:57 <pfps> Editor's should probably report back to the WG on the changes they made for these "modulos"
17:46:28 <pfps> q+
17:46:29 <bmotik> I've already started changing it.
17:47:08 <IanH> I can look at it too
17:47:30 <sandro> action: boris to implement changes for owl:versionIRI
17:47:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - Implement changes for owl:versionIRI [on Boris Motik - due 2009-04-15].
17:47:36 <JeffP> ivan: there is a change in RDF semantics too
17:47:43 <bmotik> Sure
17:47:57 <pfps> action: pfps to review changes for owl:versionIRI
17:47:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Review changes for owl:versionIRI [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-04-15].
17:47:58 <JeffP> alanr: Boris, could you check with Michael?
17:48:00 <sandro> action: peter to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI
17:48:00 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - peter
17:48:00 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ppatelsc, phaase)
17:48:04 <bmotik> No need for an axiom: I've already started changing everything.
17:48:08 <sandro> action: pfps to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI
17:48:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-04-15].
17:48:10 <bmotik> s/aximo/action
17:48:14 <sandro> action: ian to review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI
17:48:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-329 - Review and signal approval of changes made for owl:versionIRI [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-04-15].
17:48:30 <JeffP> subtopic: negative class and property assertions: should they be supported in OWL RL? (see Jos de Bruijn's LC comment and Achille's review of Profiles) 
17:48:44 <sandro> action: boris to communicate with Michael Schneider about doing the changes to RDF-Based Semantic in support of owl:versionIRI
17:48:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Communicate with Michael Schneider about doing the changes to RDF-Based Semantic in support of owl:versionIRI [on Boris Motik - due 2009-04-15].
17:49:09 <JeffP> bmotik: we could easily add both of them
17:49:25 <JeffP> ... the change in OWL2RL RDF is minimum
17:49:47 <bijan> E.g., a:notC
17:50:07 <uli> but we don't have "negClassAssertion(a C)"
17:50:41 <uli> only ClassAssertion(a not(C))
17:50:51 <JeffP> Zhe: for negative properties are fine
17:51:06 <bmotik> +q
17:51:14 <uli> could you explain, Zhe?
17:52:29 <JeffP> bmotik: we are talking about the right hand side
17:53:12 <JeffP> achille: if it is simply syntactic sugar, there is no reason that we should reject that
17:53:34 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile
17:53:52 <JeffP> Zhe: I am convinced, no big deal
17:54:39 <bmotik> +1
17:54:46 <JeffP> bijan: jeremy is oppose to the negative properties in general
17:54:52 <alanr> "at risk"?
17:55:30 <uli> you can even translate them out (using disjointclasses)
17:55:42 <JeffP> bmotik: we should vote anyway
17:55:55 <uli> (the above relates to negative class assertions 
17:55:59 <bijan> +1 to bmotik 
17:56:09 <IanH> bijan: adding them (NPAs) to RL is thus good because it reinforces their importance
17:56:20 <bijan> IRI everywhere
17:57:00 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile
17:57:07 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:57:07 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:57:08 <pfps> -0 ALU (worry about late changes, and rationale for doing this)
17:57:10 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:57:13 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
17:57:15 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
17:57:18 <ewallace> 0 NIST
17:57:19 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:57:19 <baojie> 0
17:57:21 <Rinke> 0
17:57:22 <Zhe> +0 (ORACLE)
17:57:22 <zimmer> 0
17:57:22 <JeffP> -1 need more time thinking
17:57:26 <christine> 0
17:57:28 <ivan> 0
17:57:30 <alanr> fwiw, I'm sympathetic to pfps
17:57:32 <sandro> 0 (concerned about size of RL)
17:58:48 <sandro> let's make it at risk for being in RL
18:00:29 <Achille> JeffP, NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(R, a, b) = DisjointClasses(ObjectSomeValueFrom(R, ObjectOneOf(b)), ObjectOneOf(a))). It is just a syntactic sugar.
18:01:17 <uli> Jeff, see Achille's comment above - and you can do the same with NegClassAssertion
18:01:25 <sandro> +1 bijan  -- put it in the documents for now -- decide next week,
18:01:46 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan; the more time the editors get for the changes the better (also re peter's concerns)
18:01:53 <uli> +1 to Boris
18:01:56 <sandro> bmotik: I am 100,000% sure there is no problem here.      [[ and I am wrong 103% of the time. ]]
18:01:58 <JeffP> I trust bmotik, ok to put At Risk
18:02:36 <Zhe> Achille, is that expression representable by RL syntax?
18:02:41 <JeffP> won't insist
18:02:49 <Achille> yes Zhe
18:03:04 <bijan> No
18:03:14 <alanr> PROPOSED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile unless problem are uncovered in then next week in which case revert
18:03:15 <bijan> (er...not ot Zhe)
18:03:21 <bijan> +1 Manchester
18:03:24 <pfps> 0 ALU
18:03:30 <ewallace> +1 NIST
18:03:31 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
18:03:32 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
18:03:34 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
18:03:34 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
18:03:35 <sandro> +1
18:03:36 <christine> 0
18:03:38 <JeffP> 0 (Aberdeen)
18:03:40 <Rinke> 0 
18:03:40 <Zhe> +0 ORACLE
18:03:43 <zimmer> 0.5
18:03:44 <baojie> 0
18:03:44 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
18:04:03 <alanr> RESOLVED: negative class and property assertions will be added to the OWL 2 RL profile unless problem are uncovered in then next week in which case revert
18:04:24 <JeffP> subtopic: owl:real -- do we still want/need it? 
18:04:36 <ewallace> +1 to Bijan
18:04:36 <JeffP> bijan: yes, we want and need it
18:04:43 <JeffP> ... necessary for n-ary
18:04:45 <MarkusK_> +1 to Bijan
18:04:52 <msmith> +1 to bijan
18:05:02 <uli> +1 to Bijan as well
18:05:05 <pfps> +1 to Bijan (at least that rational is not adequate)
18:05:49 <pfps> what we really might want is geometric numbers (I think that this is what we need) but real is better
18:06:01 <bijan> algebraic numbers is what you mean 
18:06:04 <JeffP> subtopic: Figure 2 in Overview -- to be or not to be? 
18:06:09 <bijan> And I think we want transcendentals
18:07:26 <sandro> we're talking about http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/4/4d/Owl2-profiles-4-muted-small.png
18:07:33 <JeffP> christine: is the figure correct? 
18:07:44 <JeffP> sandro: just about syntax
18:07:50 <uli> and for syntax it's correct
18:08:33 <JeffP> Hi uli, how about on semantics?
18:08:44 <msmith> +1 to removing the "(Full)"
18:08:57 <uli> Jeff, what would the sets stand for?
18:09:08 <JeffP> uli, thanks
18:09:40 <Rinke> +1 to Bijan... the picture is potentially really really confusing
18:09:50 <christine> +1 to Bijan!
18:09:52 <JeffP> bijan: could lead to confusion
18:10:00 <Rinke> (at least, if we have a picture for syntax, we should have one for semantics as well)
18:10:53 <alanr> STRAW POLL:  write "in" for keeping the diagram and "out" for removing it
18:11:17 <Rinke> out
18:11:21 <bijan> out
18:11:22 <JeffP> christine: can we simply keep the profiles without full?
18:11:24 <ivan> in
18:11:27 <alanr> in
18:11:30 <sandro> in
18:11:36 <baojie> out 
18:11:37 <uli> don't know
18:11:43 <pfps> out, out, out
18:11:50 <Zhe> not sure
18:11:51 <zimmer> in
18:12:02 <christine> leaning for out
18:12:03 <MarkusK_> unsure
18:12:03 <msmith> ou
18:12:05 <bcuencagrau> not sure
18:12:08 <JeffP> not sure
18:12:09 <Achille> not sure
18:12:17 <ewallace> not sure
18:13:01 <pfps> misleading, for sure
18:13:04 <baojie> Is RL really a subset of DL? it only has RDF semantics
18:13:05 <alanr> ack christine
18:13:10 <bijan> I don't think it's correct
18:13:12 <bijan> But I have no idea
18:13:17 <ivan> baojie: this is not true I believe
18:13:18 <baojie> +q
18:13:18 <alanr> ack uli
18:13:25 <Rinke> baojie ... it's syntax, not semantics
18:13:31 <baojie> i see
18:13:32 <JeffP> uli: the syntactic features of RL, EL, and QL overlap, but none is an extension of another
18:13:37 <MarkusK_> baojie, all syntqactic profiles support either semantics
18:13:42 <Rinke> ... and *that's* the confusing bit
18:13:55 <IanH> As an alternative, how about adding http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/04/puppy.jpg to soothe people who are worried about profiles?
18:14:04 <Rinke> +1 to IanH 
18:14:09 <JeffP> ... it could make the context right
18:14:23 <bijan> Size of langauge
18:14:27 <JeffP> :-)
18:14:28 <bijan> Size of overlap
18:14:36 <sandro> nice, IanH :-)
18:15:09 <Zhe> RL circile should be bigger :)
18:15:17 <alanr> I'm thinking http://www.wristwatches.tv/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/zidane-head-butt.jpg
18:15:36 <alanr> but perhaps that's idiosyncratic to chairing ;-)
18:15:41 <sandro> q?
18:15:43 <sandro> q+
18:15:48 <alanr> ack bijan
18:16:17 <alanr> ack sandro
18:16:27 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:16:43 <bijan> Yes!
18:16:46 <bijan> Put it on your blog
18:16:52 <bijan> I'll link to it
18:16:58 <bijan> And you can link to me
18:17:19 <JeffP> Topic: Test Cases
18:17:29 <sandro> sandro: I suggest we leave it out of the next publication of Overview, and see if we get comments on it.  I can put it in my blog or something.  :-)
18:18:16 <sandro> sandro: (and since that's what's in the version on the wiki right now, I think we don't need a resolution about it at this point.)
18:18:18 <sandro> alan: okay.
18:18:38 <JeffP> msmith: we need test running tools
18:19:12 <msmith> the current tests around new features are listed at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Wrangler_Notes#New_Feature_Test_Cases
18:19:57 <JeffP> bijan: it will take a while till we have the updated OWL API
18:20:32 <msmith> http://github.com/msmithcp/owlwg-test/tree/master
18:21:06 <JeffP> bijan: Robert Steven has some expressive  ontologies and some tutorials
18:21:09 <bijan> E.g., http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/download?ontology=http://www.co-ode.org/roberts/family-tree.owl&version=0&format=RDF/XML
18:21:16 <IanH> We also have a bunch of unit tests and an expanding set of test ontologies.
18:21:36 <IanH> But I know that Birte is already in touch with Mike on testing.
18:21:40 <bijan> Also, we'll have about 18 OWL EL -- reasoners in a few weeks :)
18:21:42 <msmith> I think those were using OWLAPI, yes?
18:21:45 <alanr> thanks ian
18:21:55 <JeffP> http://dipper.csd.abdn.ac.uk:8080/OWL2ProfileChecker/
18:22:30 <bijan> Test parties!
18:22:31 <JeffP> alanr: msmith could check with Jeff
18:23:35 <msmith> [...] not true
18:23:43 <MarkusK_> +1 to mike
18:24:42 <MarkusK_> Note that there are other syntaxes, see e.g. http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Test:FUNCTIONAL
18:24:52 <msmith> See http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/New-Feature-DisjointObjectProperties-001
18:26:30 <JeffP> alanr: how can we test annotation functioning?
18:26:44 <JeffP> ... we should discuss more in emails
18:27:05 <uli> Alan, load, safe, and check whether annotations are still there?
18:27:24 <alanr> uli: how?
18:27:47 <MarkusK_> +1 to Mike that normative syntax transformations need not be generated for *all* tests
18:27:48 <uli> Alan, use grep?
18:28:36 <sandro> mike: I don't think we can hand-check syntax tests for every test case.
18:29:20 <sandro> bijan: round-trip testing.
18:30:06 <JeffP> IanH: a test can be an ontology that consists all language constructs
18:30:10 <sandro> ian: mutual-entailing as a translation test.
18:30:12 <msmith> +1 to doing this mostly in 1 large test
18:30:17 <sandro> alan: yes, modulo annotations.
18:30:25 <JeffP> Topic: Any other business
18:30:31 <uli> bye bye
18:30:32 <JeffP> thx, bye
18:30:34 <Zhe> bye
18:30:35 <Rinke> bye
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000835