Chatlog 2009-05-20

From OWL
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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

<sandro> Present: pfps, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau, ruttenberg, msmith, bmotik, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK, ekw, uli, bijan, mschneid, Achille, zimmer, christine
16:55:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:55:44 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:55:52 <IanH> zakim, this will be owl
16:55:52 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
16:55:58 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl
16:56:02 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to:
16:56:51 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:58 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:57:36 <ekw> ekw has joined #owl
16:57:41 <elisa> elisa has joined #owl
16:58:15 <Zakim> +Sandro
16:58:18 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:58:19 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:58:34 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
16:58:47 <Zakim> +IanH
16:59:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
16:59:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH
16:59:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
16:59:10 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
16:59:15 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:59:30 <IanH> ScribeNick: elisa
16:59:49 <IanH>
17:00:02 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:00:20 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau
17:00:25 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:00:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau
17:00:26 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
17:00:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:00:30 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:05 <Zakim> +Alan
17:01:08 <IanH> Topic: Admin
17:01:13 <alanr> zakim, mute me
17:01:13 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:01:21 <Zakim> +msmith
17:01:26 <alanr> zakim, Alan is alanr
17:01:26 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:01:30 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl
17:01:30 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
17:01:32 <alanr> zakim, mute me
17:01:32 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
17:01:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith
17:01:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:01:41 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
17:02:01 <Zakim> +??P1
17:02:02 <elisa> Ian: are there any agenda amendments?
17:02:05 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P1 is me
17:02:05 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
17:02:09 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:02:09 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:02:09 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:02:15 <IanH> q?
17:02:30 <Zakim> +Zhe
17:02:38 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:02:39 <elisa> Ian: has anyone reviewed the previous minutes --
17:02:39 <Zakim> +baojie
17:02:43 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:02:43 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
17:02:44 <pfps> acceptable - could be fixed a bit, but no real reason to make them *perfect*
17:03:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:03:06 <baojie> zakim, mut me
17:03:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut me', baojie
17:03:10 <baojie> zakim, mute me
17:03:10 <Zakim> baojie should now be muted
17:03:15 <elisa> RESOLVED: Accept the previous minutes (
17:03:29 <elisa> Subtopic: Pending Action Items Status
17:03:34 <Zakim> + +1.301.351.aaaa
17:03:38 <Zakim> +??P25
17:03:38 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:03:45 <uli> zakim, ??P25 us me
17:03:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P25 us me', uli
17:03:50 <uli> zakim, ??P25 is me
17:03:50 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:04:03 <elisa> Action 336 complete
17:04:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 336
17:04:37 <elisa> Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:04:48 <Zakim> +??P0
17:04:49 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:04:50 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:04:53 <schneid> schneid has joined #owl
17:04:53 <bijan> zakim, ??p0 is me
17:04:53 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:05:05 <IanH> q?
17:05:14 <ekw> zakim, 1.301.351.aaaa is me
17:05:14 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aaaa'
17:05:20 <elisa> Ian: may want to reorder the discussion -- want to mark rdf:text as an at risk feature
17:05:30 <Zakim> +??P3
17:05:30 <IanH> q?
17:05:35 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
17:05:35 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:05:37 <elisa> ... this potentially gives us the flexibility to do something with rdf:text in the future.
17:05:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:05:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:05:40 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_,
17:05:43 <Zakim> ... +1.301.351.aaaa, uli (muted), bijan, schneid (muted)
17:05:59 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is ekw
17:05:59 <Zakim> +ekw; got it
17:06:07 <ekw> zakim, +1.301.351.aaaa is me
17:06:07 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '+1.301.351.aaaa'
17:06:08 <uli> fine with me
17:06:09 <elisa> Ian:  suggest we have the discussion on rdf:text after some of the other more pressing discussions
17:06:28 <elisa> Ian:  OWL LC comments and responses -- 
17:06:30 <IanH> q?
17:06:43 <IanH> q?
17:06:45 <elisa> ... people have been sending comments and responding but there are still some outstanding
17:07:09 <schneid> I also sent two
17:07:14 <elisa> Ian: Peter has sent some, Bijan too
17:07:27 <elisa> Ian:  next item:  status of the documents
17:07:54 <elisa> Ian: In response to a comment from Jeremy, we agreed to change the vocabulary used for annotations
17:08:02 <elisa> Ian: need to make a formal resolution to do so
17:08:06 <IanH> PROPOSED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
17:08:20 <elisa> Ian: any discussion?
17:08:36 <bijan> +1
17:08:39 <MarkusK_> +1
17:08:40 <uli> +1
17:08:42 <bmotik> +1
17:08:43 <alanr> +1
17:08:44 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:08:44 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:08:45 <ekw> +1
17:08:45 <sandro> +1
17:08:46 <elisa> +1
17:08:47 <baojie> +1
17:08:47 <Zhe> +1
17:08:48 <schneid> +1
17:08:49 <msmith> +1 
17:09:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
17:09:30 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:09:38 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:09:49 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
17:09:49 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:10:08 <IanH> Q?
17:10:20 <elisa> Ian: with respect to the primer, whether or not we should refer to OWL 1 docs, and in general whether or not we should do so
17:10:22 <pfps> q+
17:10:52 <ekw> NF&R have to refer to 
17:11:04 <elisa> PFPS:  In general, it's not such a great idea.  There are places where one wants to do this in the old technical documents, it's perfectly acceptable
17:11:09 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:11:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_, ekw, uli
17:11:12 <Zakim> ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille
17:11:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, schneid, bijan, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
17:11:15 <ekw> OWL 1
17:11:41 <elisa> ... if we're thinking about it with respect to users, and contrasting OWL 2 with OWL 1, in general it's not a good idea
17:11:43 <bijan> Be forward looking!
17:11:44 <uli> +1 to pfps: we have 1 document 'backwards', NF&R, and all others in general 'forwards'
17:11:50 <MarkusK_> +1 to pfps: referring back is not a good idea in general
17:11:51 <schneid> RDF-Based Semantics has a non-normative section on technical differences with old OWL 1 Full
17:12:09 <IanH> q?
17:12:11 <elisa> Ian: what I wrote in the agenda is too general -- basically in the primer there was a bit of an impasse with one of the reviewers (Deb)
17:12:14 <MarkusK_> q+
17:12:15 <elisa> and others
17:12:19 <IanH> ack pfps
17:12:27 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
17:12:39 <MarkusK_> oops, technical issue
17:12:42 <MarkusK_> q-
17:12:48 <MarkusK_> no idea what happened
17:12:56 <bijan> q+
17:12:58 <MarkusK_> I can type: we do not have a strong oppinion
17:12:59 <pfps> q+ me?
17:13:04 <IanH> ack bijan
17:13:05 <pfps> q- me?
17:13:11 <IanH> q?
17:13:11 <MarkusK_> ... but I would prefer to not refer to the old documents
17:13:48 <elisa> Bijan:  this is just an old difference of opinion - how much should our documents target users who were transitioning to OWL 2, who made heavy use of the documents
17:13:49 <MarkusK_> ... in particular since the "backward looking" aspect was already an important reason for dropping an earlier appendix from the Primer.
17:14:07 <MarkusK_> q+
17:14:11 <IanH> q?
17:14:45 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
17:14:51 <elisa> ... Deb wanted to include a number of pointers back to the older docs, and we should have a forward eye rather than backwards eye to these documents
17:15:29 <elisa> Markus: would also prefer not to have references to the older documents, aside from in NF&R - we already dropped lots of text because of similar issues
17:15:48 <alanr> could an example be presented?
17:15:49 <elisa> Ian: any other support for backwards-looking links
17:16:08 <alanr> how does she want to cite ?
17:16:15 <pfps> The proposed change to Primer is the canonical example, I guess.
17:16:19 <alanr> zakim, unmute me
17:16:19 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted
17:16:26 <IanH> q?
17:16:39 <elisa> Alan: I can imagine a number of cases, some more objectionable than others ...
17:16:47 <elisa> Ian: wasn't there a specific place ...
17:17:04 <bijan> q+
17:17:06 <Zakim> + +03539149aabb
17:17:21 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539149aabb is me
17:17:21 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
17:17:25 <pfps>   5. On “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2 New Features
17:17:27 <pfps>      and Rationale
17:17:28 <pfps>      <>]
17:17:29 <elisa> Markus: will paste it in to the IRC -- this was a general reference to the old primer
17:17:30 <pfps>      provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL 2.”
17:17:31 <pfps>         1. Change to “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2
17:17:33 <pfps>            New Features and Rationale
17:17:35 <pfps>            <>]
17:17:36 <pfps>            provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL
17:17:38 <pfps>            2. This document also replaces the OWL Guide
17:17:39 <bijan> q-
17:17:39 <pfps>            <> provided
17:17:39 <elisa> Alan: of the two cases that seems less harmful
17:17:41 <pfps>            for OWL 1.
17:17:55 <alanr> seems harmless
17:18:06 <bijan> I don't see how that helps anyone, so I don't see why we should include it
17:18:11 <alanr> zakim, mute me
17:18:11 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
17:18:23 <alanr> helps deb ;-)
17:18:27 <alanr> editorial change
17:18:31 <elisa> Ian: this seems to be kind of a trivial issue -- we just need to help get this resolved, perhaps we should have a straw poll
17:18:36 <alanr> agreed
17:18:44 <elisa> Ian:  this is editorial, so it could be dealt with after LC
17:18:48 <MarkusK_> +1 to this being editorial
17:18:58 <bijan> Ok, it doesn't seem to help any of the target audience in anyway, so I don't see why we should include it
17:19:00 <elisa> ... quick straw poll to see how people feel about this
17:19:03 <bijan> +1 to it being editorial
17:19:56 <IanH> STRAW POLL: Primer should not use references to OWL 1 guide to explain differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
17:20:15 <bmotik> +1
17:20:21 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:20:24 <pfps> +1 
17:20:25 <zimmer> +1
17:20:27 <bijan> +1
17:20:28 <Zhe> 0
17:20:30 <Achille> 0
17:20:30 <MarkusK_> +1
17:20:31 <elisa> 0
17:20:31 <sandro> 0
17:20:31 <alanr> 0
17:20:31 <uli> +1
17:20:34 <ekw> 0
17:20:34 <msmith> +1
17:20:35 <baojie> 0 (need to consult Deb)
17:20:40 <schneid> -0.2
17:20:53 <baojie> Zakim, unmute me
17:20:53 <Zakim> baojie should no longer be muted
17:21:04 <baojie> +q
17:21:10 <IanH> ack baojie
17:21:15 <elisa> Ian: most people seem to think that we shouldn't be backwards looking
17:21:21 <bijan> Technically, most people either are indifferent or hostile
17:21:36 <elisa> Jie: for the record, in general Deb will want a reference to the OWL 1 Guide
17:21:50 <elisa> Ian: this is just general guidance - we can come back to this after last call
17:22:10 <elisa> Topic: Advancing documents to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation
17:22:50 <elisa> Ian: you all have seen the discussion on exit criteria ... the suggestion is that we can vote on progressing the docs, and this only affects the CR docs
17:23:14 <IanH> q?
17:23:16 <elisa> ... we can vote on the docs being ready pending a resolution on the exit criteria, which we could vote on next week
17:23:18 <pfps> go for it!
17:23:20 <IanH> q?
17:23:28 <uli> i am happy
17:23:45 <pfps> q+
17:23:49 <elisa> Ian: any discussion on proposals
17:23:50 <IanH> ack pfps
17:24:23 <elisa> PFPS: just a general comment, it would be nice to have very few changes to the documents at this stage
17:24:41 <elisa> Ian: hopefully there would be very few other than what we have to do for publication
17:24:46 <IanH> q?
17:25:10 <sandro> Ian: We don't expect any changes to the documents after this decision (if approved) other than necessary to publish them (eg fixing links)
17:25:14 <IanH> PROPOSED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria 
17:25:16 <ekw> i am here
17:25:31 <bmotik> +1
17:25:32 <pfps> +7 ALU (seven votes for seven documents)
17:25:37 <sandro> +1 W3C
17:25:39 <baojie> 0 (RPI)
17:25:42 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:25:43 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:25:43 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:25:44 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:25:46 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
17:25:47 <msmith> +1 C&P
17:25:47 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:25:50 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
17:25:51 <bcuencagrau> +1(Oxford)
17:25:57 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:26:26 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:26:35 <pfps> q+
17:26:37 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:26:42 <IanH> ack pfps
17:27:04 <elisa> PFPS: just wondering why RPI ... what quibble do they ...
17:27:30 <pfps> q+
17:27:36 <elisa> Jie: I talked with Jim this morning, and his main concern is with regard to the profiles - he thinks that there is more work do do before they are ready
17:27:48 <pfps> q+
17:27:49 <elisa> ... we don't have problems with the other documents
17:27:58 <IanH> q?
17:28:02 <IanH> ack pfps
17:28:19 <IanH> q?
17:28:38 <elisa> PFPS: I am uneasy / unhappy that a working group member didn't air their problems before the vote
17:28:51 <IanH> q?
17:28:56 <elisa> Jie: I think Jim has been clear over the last couple of days - this should not be surprising
17:29:06 <bijan> q+
17:29:12 <IanH> q?
17:29:21 <bijan> q-
17:29:23 <elisa> PFPS: It may be that there is confusion between the profiles document and exit criteria, but ...
17:29:30 <IanH> ack bijan
17:29:43 <sandro> pfps: I am surprised and very unhappy to learn here and now that RPI has a problem with the Profiles document (as opposed to the Exit Criteria -- that part doesn't surprise me).
17:30:06 <IanH> RESOLVED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria 
17:30:12 <schneid> I would be surprised to hear that the Exit Criterium stuff has to do with the profiles, given that the /profiles/ won't probably have problems to meet the exit criteriums...
17:30:14 <sandro> woo hoo
17:30:20 <pfps> a test publication run would help (to discover bad links) -as they can't be done in the Wiki
17:30:39 <elisa> Ian: next item is progressing the next set of docs to last call
17:30:45 <sandro> yep, it's high on my list, Peter.
17:30:54 <IanH> PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale and Quick Reference Guide are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts 
17:30:59 <msmith> q+ about primer
17:31:01 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:31:10 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:31:12 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:31:14 <IanH> ack msmith
17:31:14 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
17:31:23 <baojie> +1
17:31:26 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:31:27 <baojie> +q
17:31:31 <MarkusK_> q+
17:31:32 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:31:33 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:31:34 <sandro> q+ about rdf:text
17:31:41 <elisa> msmith: regarding the primer, there was discussion on the OWL DL and OWL Full section of the primer, and I don't think that discussion is concluded
17:31:57 <elisa> ... we went back and forth on the mailing list, and I don't think that was resolved
17:32:06 <elisa> Ian: is this really editorial or crucial
17:32:09 <IanH> q?
17:32:13 <msmith> +1
17:32:18 <elisa> msmith: I think we can resolve to publish and work this out
17:32:25 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
17:32:31 <IanH> q?
17:32:37 <baojie> +1 (RPI) 
17:32:38 <elisa> Ian: then we can work this out during the last call period
17:32:38 <MarkusK_> q+
17:32:39 <pfps> q- about
17:32:42 <pfps> q- primer
17:32:45 <IanH> q?
17:32:48 <pfps> q- rdf:text
17:32:53 <sandro> thanks peter
17:32:58 <MarkusK_> q+ to answer Mike
17:33:02 <IanH> ack baojie
17:33:36 <elisa> Jie: just for the record, for the primer, Deborah still has comments that she does not believe were fully incorporated; editors did acknowledge her suggestions
17:33:55 <IanH> q?
17:33:56 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
17:33:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli
17:33:59 <Zakim> ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille, zimmer
17:34:10 <elisa> ... from Jim on the QRG - he believes that we should mention the OWL Full features, in an appendix, with the additional vocabulary
17:34:13 <schneid> q+
17:34:34 <IanH> q?
17:34:41 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
17:34:41 <Zakim> MarkusK_, you wanted to answer Mike
17:34:47 <IanH> q?
17:35:11 <msmith> great!  my +1 vote stands, thank you.
17:35:21 <elisa> Markus: to Mike -- I'm aware of the comment regarding OWL DL/OWL Full -- will do as suggested and sort this out, it's on the list for addressing very soon
17:35:36 <IanH> q?
17:35:49 <elisa> ... also from Mike about turtle syntax - had a response and is looking for Mike's ack
17:36:09 <elisa> ... from Deborah -- there is an additional open issue that can be fixed quickly
17:36:19 <elisa> Ian: so are these really editorial in nature?
17:36:57 <elisa> Markus: yes -- two of them are editorial, plus the issue Mike raised, which is reverting to prior
17:36:58 <pfps> q+
17:37:04 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
17:37:04 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
17:37:06 <IanH> ack schneid
17:37:47 <elisa> schneid: I know that there are some terms that are not in the mapping from functional to RDF graphs, but to call them OWL Full -- these should go at least from RDF to functional syntax
17:38:14 <elisa> ... this has nothing to do with OWL Full -- the mapping document isn't about OWL Full, and so calling it this way is confusing
17:38:21 <baojie> i agree
17:38:30 <IanH> ack pfps
17:38:34 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:38:34 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:38:34 <elisa> Ian: basically, if we agree that these issues are editorial, then we can vote and come back to them later
17:39:04 <elisa> PFPS: there is this matter of section 4.2 in the QRG, there is an outstanding disagreement on what it should say; there may be a more serious disagreement
17:39:24 <elisa> ... all of this should be put into the earlier sections, depending on what Jim wants ...
17:39:24 <IanH> q?
17:39:56 <elisa> ... that things like distinctMembers should show up in section 2 or 3
17:40:21 <elisa> Ian: if this isn't worked out during last call, then in principle you could make an objection that would send it back to last call again
17:40:31 <elisa> PFPS: I'm happy with the current state of the document
17:40:32 <baojie> +q
17:40:46 <IanH> ack baojie
17:40:53 <elisa> Ian: for this to change, we would have to have the discussion
17:41:14 <elisa> Jie: we could add an editors note
17:42:03 <elisa> Ian: we would be voting on the documents in their current state, so we could pull the document from the list of those going to last call
17:42:44 <bijan> Bit strange that a main editor is voting against the document :)
17:42:46 <IanH> q?
17:42:54 <elisa> ... if you want me to split this out from the proposal, we could do so
17:43:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts 
17:43:12 <alanr> voting against document in current form, with constructive proposal on how to resolve.
17:43:15 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:43:16 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:43:16 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:43:16 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:43:17 <alanr> jie is
17:43:17 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:43:18 <alanr> 0
17:43:20 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:43:23 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:43:24 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:43:26 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
17:43:26 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:43:33 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:43:39 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:43:43 <alanr> oops +1 on these
17:43:53 <pfps> I wonder what SC thinks is lacking in these documents.
17:43:59 <pfps> sorry
17:44:19 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:44:32 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:44:47 <IanH> RESOLVED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
17:45:14 <pfps> Just a note that there are one or two agreed-on changes to go into Primer.
17:45:27 <IanH> PROPOSED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as Last Call Working Draft
17:45:31 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:45:37 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:45:45 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
17:45:45 <ekw> +1
17:45:48 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:45:53 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:45:53 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
17:45:53 <baojie> -1 (RPI) (need to mention OWL full features in some way)
17:45:53 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:45:56 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:45:56 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:45:59 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:46:00 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:46:03 <ekw> +1(NIST)
17:46:11 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:46:46 <bijan> Will he lie down in the road
17:46:58 <pfps> q+
17:47:01 <alanr> Do we need to do that, or can we give it the week to resolve?
17:47:04 <elisa> Ian: procedure on how to handle objection?
17:47:11 <IanH> q?
17:47:20 <elisa> Sandro: Jie - are you firmly opposed to this happening today?
17:47:42 <elisa> ... would you be willing to ... if we have this vote next week, would you be ok?
17:47:45 <bijan> q+
17:47:50 <pfps> q-
17:47:59 <IanH> ack bijan
17:48:01 <elisa> Jie: if OWL Full features are mentioned in some way, I'll have no objection
17:48:05 <pfps> I suggest that this be ironed out *quickly*.
17:48:14 <elisa> Ian: so we will postpone this vote to next week
17:48:38 <alanr> q+
17:48:52 <elisa> Bijan: if it goes this way next week, then we should give it up - not have a quick reference quide, and would anyone else be deadlocking
17:48:54 <pfps> q+
17:49:01 <IanH> ack alanr
17:49:18 <elisa> Ian: would others vote against it going to last call if it contains something about OWL Full?
17:49:19 <pfps> q-
17:49:20 <alanr> zakim, mute me
17:49:20 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
17:49:26 <IanH> q?
17:49:32 <elisa> Alan: we could vote on this issue without taking the whole document down
17:49:39 <bijan> It's not speculation. If no one will oppose the other way we should decide now
17:49:48 <IanH> q?
17:49:53 <elisa> Ian: yes, we should discuss this over the week and see if it can be resolved
17:50:03 <elisa> Ian: any issues on the third proposal?
17:50:03 <schneid> I would like to state that I do not consider this as a discussion about "somthing about OWL Full"
17:50:22 <schneid> I said it before
17:50:23 <bijan> Moving on
17:50:25 <bijan> Back to email
17:50:26 <IanH> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
17:50:29 <alanr> noted - take it to email
17:50:32 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:50:33 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:50:34 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
17:50:35 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
17:50:38 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
17:50:39 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
17:50:40 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
17:50:41 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
17:50:42 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:50:43 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
17:50:43 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
17:50:46 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
17:50:48 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
17:50:48 <Zakim> -schneid
17:50:54 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
17:50:56 <bijan> q+ to ask about abstainers
17:51:05 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
17:51:07 <Zakim> +??P3
17:51:09 <IanH> q?
17:51:15 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
17:51:15 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:51:19 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:51:19 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:51:30 <IanH> q?
17:51:33 <IanH> ack bijan
17:51:33 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask about abstainers
17:51:46 <alanr> I abstained because the issue of labels was not resolved in a way I was comfortable
17:51:48 <elisa> Bijan: about the abstainers -- in general it's better if we don't have abstentions ... is there anything that would change their position
17:52:10 <IanH> q?
17:52:23 <alanr> zakim, mute me
17:52:23 <Zakim> alanr was already muted, alanr
17:52:28 <elisa> Achille: I'm still not convinced that we need yet another syntax
17:52:59 <pfps> This is not a REC document, just a Note, so I think that we have already taken care of Achille's issue.
17:53:08 <IanH> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
17:53:18 <bijan> HURRAH!
17:53:22 <Zhe> :)
17:53:22 <alanr> woot!
17:53:54 <IanH> q?
17:53:57 <Zakim> -schneid
17:54:00 <elisa> Topic: back to the discussion on rdf:text
17:54:08 <alanr> we said we would put it at risk
17:54:08 <Zakim> -bijan
17:54:16 <alanr> yes
17:54:20 <Zakim> +??P3
17:54:22 <alanr> beginning of the meeting
17:54:28 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
17:54:28 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:54:30 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:54:30 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:54:34 <alanr> no resolution. Ian said we will do. No one had comments.
17:55:04 <alanr> issue: vote not announced before meeting...
17:55:05 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-151 - Vote not announced before meeting... ; please complete additional details at .
17:55:05 <MarkusK_> Update on Primer: the two open concerns of Mike have been settled and confirmed by email: and (sorry for this late addon to the earlier discussion)
17:55:08 <IanH> q?
17:55:13 <elisa> Sandro: we should have a resolution on the rdf:text issue with an action to have someone make the changes to the documents
17:55:30 <elisa> Ian: so let's have discussion on making rdf:text at risk
17:55:33 <IanH> q?
17:56:02 <elisa> Sandro: high-level summary - there seem to be strong positions on several sides; 
17:56:04 <pfps> q+
17:56:24 <bmotik> q+
17:56:34 <alanr> reduces change of having an LC if things go back
17:56:35 <elisa> ... several people from SPARQL, Pat Hayes have positions that are not clear in terms of how to reconcile
17:56:39 <alanr> s/change/chance/
17:56:52 <IanH> ack pfps
17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:56:57 <elisa> ... we still might have to go back to last call, but this increases the odds of being able to proceed
17:57:06 <Zakim> -schneid
17:57:10 <IanH> q?
17:57:12 <sandro> sandro: Putting rdf:text At Risk reduced the odds of us needing to go back to Last Call if rdf:text changes.
17:57:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:57:41 <elisa> PFPS: I was thinking about what needs to be changed - the direct semantics is in the worst shape; as far as implementations go, very little would need to be changed to take out rdf:text, as long as implementers
17:57:47 <alanr> alan +1 to peter's assessment
17:57:50 <elisa> ... agree to put in a switch somewhere
17:57:59 <IanH> q?
17:58:03 <alanr> syntax 
17:58:11 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:58:11 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
17:58:12 <elisa> Sandro: if we can flag those points now
17:58:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me
17:58:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
17:58:14 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:58:38 <elisa> PFPS: direct semantics will be the most difficult
17:59:24 <bmotik> I'm surprised with the option of removing rdf:text.
17:59:30 <bmotik> What would have put into the documents then?
17:59:39 <bmotik> We'd need to change Syntax quite a bit
17:59:47 <pfps> It would be a mess, I agree.
17:59:51 <bmotik> And the facets should go away.
17:59:56 <bmotik> We should *NOT* go there.
18:00:03 <bmotik> WE should make these people see the light.
18:00:14 <bmotik> In fact, I think that only Pat is entrneched.
18:00:19 <alanr> Let's hope for the best, but document our current state well to protect ourselves
18:00:20 <pfps> One option would be to have owl:text!
18:00:29 <bmotik> I had an impression that Andy and Eric were more of less conceding.
18:00:30 <pfps> q+
18:00:38 <bmotik> But this might have been just my impression.
18:00:43 <IanH> ack pfps
18:00:58 <bmotik> Pat is the only one with a really strong opinion about it.
18:00:59 <IanH> q?
18:01:02 <elisa> PFPS: Let's make it owl:text
18:01:14 <elisa> Sandro: it might help, it's hard to say
18:01:34 <elisa> PFPS: owl:text would make it internal to our documents, and we could arrange to emit the right things
18:01:49 <bmotik> But that's already there!
18:02:10 <bmotik> Well, there was a MUST in the documents,
18:02:10 <elisa> Sandro: if we can be careful enough about what we emit, then that's one option
18:02:11 <pfps> I can write up a CM - what needs to be change to make various things work.
18:02:16 <bmotik> and people changed it to SHOULD.
18:02:25 <IanH> q?
18:02:35 <alanr> we are not going to solve this now.
18:02:36 <bmotik> I'm open to this.
18:02:43 <elisa> Sandro: it didn't handle the lang function -- is it just wordsmithing about how we emit the triples, or is there some other solution
18:02:45 <alanr> at hand is dealing with putting at risk.
18:03:07 <pfps> An "at risk" statement has to give the fallback position!
18:03:08 <christine> christine has joined #owl
18:03:14 <bmotik> I need more fire power.
18:03:14 <IanH> q?
18:03:26 <elisa> Ian: is there anything we can really do aside from this at risk position
18:03:34 <alanr> fallback position is remove rdf:text from OWL 2
18:03:42 <uli> Boris, how can we help with fire power?
18:04:01 <Zakim> +??P2
18:04:05 <IanH> q?
18:04:08 <elisa> Sandro: this gives us a little more cover for some changes that might happen - at risk is more of a comment allowing us to refactor how owl:text is handled
18:04:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
18:04:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik, Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli (muted),
18:04:14 <Zakim> ... Achille, zimmer, schneid (muted), ??P2
18:04:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see christine, Achille, schneid, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
18:04:27 <christine> zakim, ??P2 is christine
18:04:27 <Zakim> +christine; got it
18:04:28 <elisa> PFPS: that may be the best worst we can do
18:04:54 <elisa> Ian: we could propose to mark rdf:text as being at risk - is that reasonable at this point?
18:04:55 <pfps> Reasonable is not the word to use.  :-(
18:05:04 <IanH> PROPOSED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
18:05:20 <pfps> +0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
18:05:21 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
18:05:26 <baojie> 0 (RPI)
18:05:29 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
18:05:30 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
18:05:31 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
18:05:31 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
18:05:31 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
18:05:37 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
18:05:40 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
18:05:50 <zimmer> 0 (DERI)
18:05:56 <msmith> +1
18:05:58 <uli> +0 (Manchester)
18:06:19 <elisa> Ian: any more on this?
18:06:30 <IanH> RESOLVED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
18:06:57 <bmotik> q+
18:07:02 <IanH> q?
18:07:03 <bmotik> I could use some more fire power.
18:07:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:07:15 <bmotik> Yes.
18:07:16 <pfps> I'll take a look.
18:07:27 <alanr> "oh no"
18:07:28 <elisa> Ian: so more of us will try to look at this and join in the discussion
18:07:57 <pfps> Any *discussion* on CR exit?
18:08:03 <elisa> Ian: did not really cover last call comments
18:08:12 <IanH> q?
18:08:27 <elisa> Ian: any utility in discussing LC comments and responses?
18:08:27 <schneid> I am still waiting for Jeremy to answer the NPA reply
18:08:34 <sandro>
18:08:42 <pfps> I've been following the (d)evolution of the page.
18:08:43 <IanH>
18:08:51 <pfps> q+
18:08:52 <elisa> Ian: CR exit criteria -- has anyone had a chance to look at the proposal and have comments?
18:08:52 <IanH> q?
18:08:56 <IanH> ack pfps
18:09:10 <IanH> q?
18:09:51 <elisa> PFPS: in particular, the four profiles -- look just right; the only change I might make - we might be able to get away with one implementation that shows benefits, and the other shows interoperability
18:09:51 <alanr> seems reasonable
18:10:00 <IanH> q?
18:10:15 <msmith> q+ to ask about benefit
18:10:20 <elisa> Ian: yes, what we have may be a bit strong - one that shows benefit and one that shows interoperability might be enough,
18:10:21 <IanH> ack msmith
18:10:21 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about benefit
18:10:27 <elisa> ... we might get some pushback on that
18:10:42 <pfps> In my opinion Pellet works as a native EL reasoner.
18:10:46 <alanr> that works
18:10:55 <elisa> msmith: what do you mean by shows benefit -- demonstrating that the benefit comes from EL vs DL comes down to run time
18:10:57 <pfps> q+
18:11:02 <alanr> performance is a feature
18:11:02 <MarkusK_> q+
18:11:19 <msmith> great
18:11:19 <sandro> yeah, that works.  Pellet can count as both DL and EL (given having this special EL processor in it).
18:11:23 <elisa> Ian: Pellet is a perfect example - using a different algorithm to demonstrate EL
18:11:24 <IanH> ack pfps
18:11:46 <elisa> PFPS: Pellet is not only acceptable EL exemplar, but exemplary EL exemplar
18:12:15 <pfps> q+
18:12:17 <elisa> Sandro: we might want to change the language to make this clear 
18:12:23 <pfps> q+ to ask about process
18:12:43 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
18:12:44 <elisa> Ian: should make this clear that multiple examples could be supported by the same implementation
18:12:45 <IanH> q?
18:13:30 <elisa> Markus: benefit in the fact that you have it implemented
18:13:51 <IanH> q?
18:13:54 <IanH> ack pfps
18:13:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about process
18:14:12 <elisa> Ian: we are really dependent on the integrity of implementers that their implementation supports this, which is ok
18:14:14 <uli> ?
18:14:18 <IanH> q?
18:14:38 <uli> can you repeat the question, peter?
18:14:41 <elisa> PFPS: so if we don't have an implementation for OWL2 QL, does that throw OWL2 under the bus, or the profiles under the bus?
18:14:58 <alanr> but we shouldn't have any trouble finding QL implementations - quonto/owlgres
18:15:13 <elisa> ... I would hope that we could claim that we can only yank that profile rather than the whole profile section
18:15:18 <IanH> q?
18:15:28 <elisa> PFPS: what happens if we flunk the OWL Full test?
18:15:31 <alanr> deliberately loose for the owl full language
18:15:41 <schneid> q+
18:15:45 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
18:15:45 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
18:15:47 <IanH> ack schneid
18:16:43 <IanH> q?
18:16:49 <elisa> schneid: should the test suite -- there will be no hope for reaching the 80% mark - there are some tests that are not as hard as the special tests from OWL 1, but they are crafted in a way such that certain reasoners will have no chance
18:17:07 <elisa> Sandro: the question here is whether there will be tests that no reasoner can pass
18:17:36 <elisa> schneid: I can look at it and say that these tests are probably handled by general reasoners and these are probably not
18:17:48 <ekw> Gotta go!  Bye.
18:17:54 <Zakim> -ekw
18:18:03 <elisa> Ian: do you think it would be possible to develop a reasoner that would pass those tests?
18:18:34 <alanr> q+ 
18:18:38 <IanH> q?
18:18:52 <sandro> Possible clause (that I DON'T support):    Every OWL 2 Full test case must be passed by at least two entailment checkers
18:18:57 <elisa> schneid: I don't know what was done in the past - it would take time to produce it; perhaps 40% would go through Jena
18:19:03 <IanH> ack alanr
18:19:33 <elisa> Alan: you can do that, but do you think that the exit criteria would be strengthen by having some number of tests
18:19:43 <alanr> zakim, mute me
18:19:43 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
18:20:21 <elisa> schneid: we have a number of really good reasoners - could we create a system in the next few weeks that would do most of our test cases ...
18:20:39 <elisa> Ian: what we have to determine is whether the current wording in the exit criteria is reasonable
18:20:59 <alanr> Michael - can you send email suggesting a proposal?
18:21:15 <alanr> and we can discuss this on email this week
18:21:26 <elisa> schneid: we should completely rethink this, because we're just lucky that we have existing reasoners that can do this, but you can't compare OWL to HTML
18:21:52 <IanH> q?
18:21:54 <elisa> Ian: I sympathize, but this kind of exit criteria ... is at least strongly expected
18:22:06 <elisa> Sandro: we need to prove that the specification is implementable
18:22:38 <elisa> Ian: why would we not just say that it is obviously implementable
18:22:47 <elisa> schneid: it should at least be realistic
18:22:55 <elisa> Sandro: aside from OWL Full
18:23:11 <elisa> schneid: we can meet all the other profiles and OWL DL easily ...
18:23:16 <IanH> q?
18:23:16 <sandro> q?
18:23:21 <elisa> Ian: so we're only discussing OWL Full
18:24:01 <elisa> schneid: all I want is ... I will do what I can in the time that I have, but it is unrealistic to reach 80%
18:24:11 <sandro> "#  Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and taking advantage of at least some of the claimed benefits of OWL 2 Full† "
18:24:31 <uli> so where is the problem then?
18:24:44 <elisa> schneid: if something like a significant part is enough, 
18:25:03 <elisa> Ian: I'm not really understanding your objection/suggestion
18:25:21 <elisa> Sandro: he may be talking about the 80% text that has been removed
18:25:28 <alanr> happy?
18:25:34 <uli> Michael, you worry about things you shouldn't worry about!
18:25:35 <elisa> schneid: a useful subset is fine -- that's what Jena already does
18:25:39 <IanH> q?
18:25:39 <alanr> good.
18:25:40 <msmith> exactly!  we're in agreement. :)
18:26:33 <elisa> Ian: would you prefer if we put in that implementations should pass some tests
18:26:45 <IanH> q?
18:26:46 <elisa> ... we can take that into email discussion
18:26:54 <schneid> zakim, mute me
18:26:54 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
18:27:12 <elisa> Ian: we're really out of time 
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: Two notable changes to test results...
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: 1) Test suite results now include OWLAPI profile checking results.  Some failures for profile checks, for which I will follow up to determine if the tester or the test is wrong.
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: 2) All RDF vocab is now used in at least one test case (with an exception for property used with nary datatype restrictions).
18:27:37 <elisa> ... we'll be coming back to talk about test suites over the next few weeks, in CR we will be doing much more testing
18:27:42 <elisa> Ian: AOB?
18:27:53 <uli> hurray!
18:28:15 <elisa> Ian: congratulations for progressing almost all of our documents;
18:28:18 <alanr> bye
18:28:19 <Zakim> -uli
18:28:21 <Zakim> -baojie
18:28:21 <Zhe> bye
18:28:22 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:28:22 <Zakim> -msmith
18:28:23 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:28:24 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:28:26 <Zakim> -alanr
18:28:26 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
18:28:28 <Zakim> -Achille
18:28:32 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:28:35 <zimmer> good bye
18:28:40 <Zakim> -schneid
18:28:45 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has left #owl
18:28:50 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public