Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-05-27
From OWL
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
# ...lines from the rdf-text telecon deleted from here, moved to RDFTEXT page # ...replaced bcuencagrau.a with bcuencagrau, replaced schneid with michael_schneider # 15:23:05 <sandro> testing. 15:40:48 <Jie> Jie has joined #owl 16:12:43 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl 16:34:18 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 16:34:33 <bmotik> Zakim, this will be owl 16:34:33 <Zakim> ok, bmotik; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes 16:50:39 <Rinke> Rinke has joined #owl 16:53:27 <Rinke> scribenick: Rinke 16:54:10 <Rinke> zakim, this will be owl 16:54:10 <Zakim> ok, Rinke; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 16:55:08 <bijan> bijan has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.05.27/Agenda 16:55:17 <zimmer> zimmer has joined #owl 16:55:50 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 16:55:57 <Zakim> +??P14 16:56:08 <bijan> zakim, ??p14 is me 16:56:08 <Zakim> +bijan; got it 16:56:20 <Zakim> +??P15 16:56:28 <Rinke> zakim, ??P15 is me 16:56:28 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it 16:56:54 <Rinke> zakim, mute me 16:56:56 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 16:56:57 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted 16:57:05 <Zakim> +??P9 # 16:57:11 <Rinke> yes 16:57:14 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P9 is me 16:57:14 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 16:57:30 <Zakim> +Sandro 16:57:38 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 16:57:38 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 16:57:40 <Zakim> +IanH 16:57:51 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-michael_schneiderer 16:58:22 <IanH> zakim, Peter_Patel-michael_schneiderer is pfps 16:58:22 <Zakim> +pfps; got it 16:58:50 <IanH> zakim, who is here? 16:58:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, IanH, pfps 16:58:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, zimmer, Rinke, bmotik, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, trackbot 16:58:59 <michael_schneider> michael_schneider has joined #owl 16:59:31 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.05.27/Agenda 16:59:47 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public 16:59:47 <Zakim> +alanr 16:59:58 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 17:00:08 <IanH> ScribeNick: Rinke 17:00:09 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:00:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, IanH, pfps, alanr 17:00:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, michael_schneider, IanH, zimmer, Rinke, bmotik, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, trackbot 17:00:21 <ivan> ivan has joined #owl 17:00:22 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl 17:00:39 <Zakim> +zimmer 17:00:41 <IanH> zakim, mute me 17:00:41 <Zakim> IanH should now be muted 17:00:52 <uli> uli has joined #owl 17:01:02 <MarkusK_> MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:01:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:01:12 <michael_schneider> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:01:12 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it 17:01:16 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 17:01:16 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 17:01:28 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau 17:01:29 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau 17:01:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 17:01:41 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:01:41 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:01:42 <Zakim> +Ivan 17:01:51 <hendler> hendler has joined #owl 17:01:53 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:01:53 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted # 17:01:59 <bcuencagrau> -q # 17:02:11 <bcuencagrau> -q 17:02:12 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 17:02:13 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, IanH (muted), pfps, alanr, zimmer, michael_schneider (muted), bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, Ivan 17:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see hendler, MarkusK_, uli, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, michael_schneider, IanH, zimmer, Rinke, bmotik, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, trackbot 17:02:24 <ewallace> ewallace has joined #owl # 17:02:24 <uli> Bernardo, zakim thought i was you 17:02:27 <Zakim> + +1.518.276.aaaa 17:03:03 <hendler> zakim, aaaa is hendler 17:03:03 <Zakim> +hendler; got it 17:03:05 <Zakim> +??P3 # 17:03:10 <uli> Bernardo, you are not muted 17:03:12 <Rinke> topic: Admin 17:03:18 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:03:18 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:03:19 <uli> zakim, ??P3 is me 17:03:19 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 17:03:19 <Zakim> +uli; got it 17:03:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan, Rinke (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, IanH (muted), pfps, alanr, zimmer, michael_schneider (muted), bcuencagrau (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, hendler, uli 17:03:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see ewallace, hendler, MarkusK_, uli, bcuencagrau, ivan, alanr, michael_schneider, IanH, zimmer, Rinke, bmotik, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, trackbot 17:03:26 <bcuencagrau> how about now? 17:03:27 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace 17:03:30 <uli> zakim, mute me 17:03:30 <Zakim> uli should now be muted 17:03:37 <Rinke> subtopic: agenda amendments? 17:03:46 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 17:03:48 <alanr> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0329.html 17:03:53 <alanr> Agenda amendment 17:03:59 <Rinke> alanr: had a question out this morning... see if we have time for it 17:04:09 <Rinke> alanr: no actions due 17:04:19 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau 17:04:22 <Rinke> subtopic: previous minutes 17:04:28 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mut me 17:04:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut me', bcuencagrau 17:04:29 <michael_schneider> alan, this is pretty technical, can we avoid have this on *this* telco? 17:04:30 <IanH> look OK to me 17:04:35 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me 17:04:35 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted 17:04:41 <pfps> acceptable minutes 17:04:42 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (20 May) 17:04:43 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl 17:04:51 <alanr> +1 17:05:01 <Zakim> + +1.202.408.aabb 17:05:07 <Rinke> RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (20 May) 17:05:24 <Rinke> topic: last call and CR 17:05:28 <Rinke> subtopic: rdf:text 17:05:37 <Zakim> -Rinke 17:05:41 <alanr> a lot of static 17:05:49 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl 17:06:04 <zimmer> yes 17:06:06 <bcuencagrau> I am 17:06:09 <sandro> zakim, who is talking? 17:06:15 <pfps> sandro: the meeting was rather productive 17:06:20 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: hendler (44%), zimmer (64%), alanr (52%), Sandro (1%), msmith (77%) 17:06:25 <Zakim> +??P15 17:06:31 <Rinke> zakim, ??P15 is me 17:06:31 <Zakim> +Rinke; got it 17:06:32 <pfps> sandro: there was agreement on the general outlines of a proposal 17:06:33 <alanr> PROPOSED: the name of the rdf:text datatype be changed to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:06:33 <sandro> msmith, that did it. 17:06:33 <Rinke> zakim, mute me 17:06:33 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted 17:06:45 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl 17:06:54 <Zakim> +Zhe 17:06:56 <Zhe> zakim, mute me 17:06:56 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted 17:07:03 <sandro> +1 17:07:04 <ivan> +1 17:07:04 <zimmer> zakim, mute me 17:07:04 <Zakim> zimmer should now be muted 17:07:05 <bmotik> +1 17:07:06 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:07:09 <Achille> +1 17:07:11 <msmith> +1 17:07:12 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI 17:07:14 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:07:14 <zimmer> +1 (DERI) 17:07:14 <Rinke> Rinke: +1 Amsterdam 17:07:15 <Zhe> sorry what is the vote for? 17:07:17 <Zakim> +[IBM] 17:07:21 <bijan> +1 17:07:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: the name of the rdf:text datatype be changed to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:07:30 <hendler> +1 RPI 17:07:34 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me 17:07:34 <Zakim> +Achille; got it 17:07:39 <IanH> +1 (Oxford) 17:07:46 <Zhe> 0 17:07:53 <Rinke> RESOLVED: the name of the rdf:text datatype be changed to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:08:03 <hendler> oops - RPI should be 0 on that 17:08:06 <Zakim> -msmith 17:08:07 <pfps> We could vote, but lot's of would have to vote -1 17:08:22 <Rinke> alanr: not voting on accepting rdf:text/rdf:plainliteral as CR 17:08:29 <Rinke> subtopic: CR exit criteria 17:08:30 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria 17:08:46 <IanH> q+ 17:08:51 <Rinke> alanr: if jim could put in the wording changes that he is proposing 17:08:51 <pfps> Zhe had a truncated message on this, is Jim going to provide the pointer? 17:08:53 <MarkusK_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0319.html 17:08:55 <alanr> ack IanH 17:08:55 <IanH> ack ianh 17:09:21 <Zhe> me? 17:09:22 <Zakim> +msmith 17:09:23 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria 17:09:30 <Rinke> IanH: there have been ongoing changes.. the wording on the webpage has changed several times (in small ways). People should look there now, and not assume they know what it says 17:09:33 <Zakim> -michael_schneider 17:09:35 <alanr> q? 17:09:40 <hendler> q+ 17:09:42 <pfps> q+ 17:09:42 <Zhe> pfps, I don't understand 17:10:03 <alanr> q? 17:10:03 <MarkusK_> pfps, Jie sent another mail that is complete 17:10:25 <pfps> q+ 17:10:31 <Rinke> hendler: I like what IanH did on the profiles. I don't see that it has to be one of those that illustrates. each of the implementable benefits needs to be demonstrated, and we need to show implementations 17:10:32 <michael_schneider_> michael_schneider_ has joined #owl 17:10:53 <Rinke> hendler: if you just drop the 'of'... 17:10:57 <alanr> ack pfps 17:11:13 <Rinke> pfps: I am opposed to requiring that each of the benefits need to be demonstrated in a current implementation 17:11:32 <Rinke> pfps: if we provide 10 implementable benefits, we have demonstrated the utility of the profile 17:11:35 <alanr> q? 17:11:44 <hendler> q+ 17:11:47 <bijan> Objective vs. goal? 17:11:48 <michael_schneider__> michael_schneider__ has joined #owl 17:11:50 <alanr> ack hendler 17:11:52 <sandro> yeah, existance seems good enough to me.... 17:11:53 <Rinke> pfps: if we provide two implementable benefits, we have succeeded (as we only have a few real benefits) 17:12:07 <pfps> q+ 17:12:17 <alanr> q+ 17:12:32 <Rinke> hendler: don't agree with you on that one peter. We need to prove that the benefits really exist 17:12:36 <alanr> ack pfps 17:12:45 <IanH> q+ 17:13:07 <Zakim> +??P2 17:13:10 <alanr> ack alanr 17:13:15 <michael_schneider> zakim, ??P2 is me 17:13:15 <Zakim> +michael_schneider; got it 17:13:17 <alanr> EL = Can deal with large numbers of classes; polynomial time reasoning; 17:13:18 <alanr> QL = LOGSPACE data complexity for query answering; implementable via query rewriting; 17:13:18 <alanr> RL = implementation using rule-based technologies; sound and complete for certain kinds of query. 17:13:18 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 17:13:18 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 17:13:32 <alanr> q? 17:13:36 <alanr> ack IanH 17:13:37 <Rinke> pfps: I completely disagree. If we have features that we don't have implementations of, then YES. The beauty of some of the benefits is intrinsic, and independent of implementation. 17:14:04 <pfps> q+ 17:14:09 <alanr> ack pfps 17:14:12 <Rinke> IanH: maybe, making it less abstract makes some of peter's concerns go away. Sympathise with him, but we can actually satisfy exit criteria with respect to what's there 17:14:18 <hendler> q+ 17:14:56 <Rinke> pfps: for EL if you meet the second one, you can meet the others easily. Only matters for EL. The first is squishy, the second (polinomial time reasoning) is non-squishy 17:15:05 <sandro> +1 put the one we're gunna go for. 17:15:06 <Rinke> pfps: why not push the one we want to go for then? 17:15:24 <Rinke> alanr: EL polinomial, QL rewritable to SQL... for RL...? 17:15:33 <alanr> ack hendler 17:15:33 <Rinke> hendler: implementable using rule-based technologies 17:15:36 <sandro> +1 implementable using rule-based technologies. 17:15:56 <Rinke> hendler: ok with that for QL and RL. EL is different, there is no way to prove via implementation that something is polinomial 17:16:17 <Rinke> hendler: in the documents we say 'EL is the right expressivity for several ontologies'... make that one the claim. Much stronger argument for EL 17:16:24 <pfps> I'm fine with an expressivity argument for EL 17:16:32 <alanr> q? 17:16:39 <Rinke> hendler: implementers will be more impressed with that than 'there exists some algorithm' 17:16:55 <Rinke> hendler: CR is all about implementation... sound and complete is not an implementable thing etc etc 17:18:07 <Rinke> hendler: for EL in profiles rather theoretical, but in NF&R more practical. 'Can deal with large numbers of classes, as 17:18:27 <hendler> Let me take a stab 17:19:02 <Rinke> alanr: EL application to one of these large ontologies, QL rewriting, and RL implementation using rules 17:19:08 <alanr> q? 17:19:13 <hendler> EL two different implementations ... and one which demonstrates that EL can process a large ontology with many classes (eg Snomed) 17:19:22 <pfps> fine by me 17:19:33 <Rinke> alanr: proposal on the table 17:19:39 <Rinke> alanr: ok with you, IanH ? 17:19:42 <hendler> QL 2 imps ... and one which demonstrates that QL can ... query rewriting to SQL 17:19:46 <Rinke> IanH: yes 17:20:00 <Rinke> alanr: can you have a quick shot at this, ian? 17:20:05 <Rinke> IanH: doing it now 17:20:19 <hendler> RL ... and one which is implementable via rules 17:20:19 <Rinke> subtopic: status report on LC comments 17:20:26 <Rinke> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments#Comments_requiring_responses 17:20:35 <bijan> A bunch of "oh wells" from JC at the last minute...hurrah! 17:20:51 <bijan> Seems like TQ is just going to go with teh WebSHROIQ thing 17:20:56 <Rinke> alanr: not hearing anything 17:21:13 <Rinke> bijan: jeremy sent some replies today, 'we disagree but won't fuss' 17:21:26 <pfps> and Ian has already put this into the Summary 17:21:33 <Rinke> bijan: curious to go with the WebSHROIQ thing 17:21:36 <IanH> I updated the LC comments page according to JC's recent responses 17:21:57 <bijan> s/curious to go/it's curious, but they seem to want to go/ 17:21:58 <hendler> q+ 17:22:01 <Rinke> alanr: the only thing we need to sign of on is that folks are comfortable with where we stand on that, and that our technical summary is of the right form (sandro?) 17:22:04 <alanr> ack hendler 17:22:25 <Rinke> hendler: I'm catching up on all this... (informational question). I see that one of them has an ACK NOT OK. 17:22:33 <Rinke> bijan: we'll be going over that objection 17:22:39 <Rinke> bijan: only one instead of seven 17:22:46 <Rinke> hendler: no problem, just to make sure I understood 17:22:57 <Rinke> alanr: not hearing a lot of commenting, think we're in good shape 17:23:02 <pfps> I think that this is all in at least "fair" shape 17:23:03 <Rinke> alanr: ready for us to look at the page yet? 17:23:07 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria 17:23:19 <Rinke> alanr: people have a look at the page 17:23:44 <Rinke> hendler: small change, if you made for each of the profiles put the two in parallel... right now you're requiring three implementation 17:23:56 <Rinke> hendler: trying to make room for two or three implementations 17:24:06 <Rinke> IanH: don't understand why 'one of which' doesn't solve the problem 17:24:09 <msmith> +1 to ianh 17:24:15 <sandro> Ian's right. :-) "one of which" is better. 17:24:15 <uli> +1 to leave "one of which" in 17:24:17 <Rinke> hendler: can live with these 17:24:23 <bijan> I'm happy with this. I'm happy either way. 17:24:27 <msmith> +1 to one of which 17:24:43 <msmith> then you're good! 17:24:48 <Rinke> hendler: supposing I had an RL entailment tracker that was not rule-based but complete. and another one which is rule-based but missing a bit 17:25:02 <Rinke> hendler: just being pedantic... just thought that this one is less restrictive than the other 17:25:12 <Rinke> IanH: changing it back to 'one of which' 17:25:27 <Rinke> hendler: assuming we'll be getting more than three 17:25:32 <pfps> q+ 17:25:35 <Rinke> alanr: ready to vote? 17:25:40 <msmith> q+ to suggest removing (e.g., SNOMED) 17:25:50 <alanr> ack msmith 17:25:51 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to suggest removing (e.g., SNOMED) 17:25:52 <alanr> q? 17:25:52 <msmith> zakim, unmute me 17:25:54 <Zakim> msmith was not muted, msmith 17:26:19 <Rinke> msmith: we remove the e.g. SNOMED, and just mention a very large ontology.... because if it's not SNOMED.... 17:26:21 <alanr> ack pfps 17:26:26 <Rinke> bijan: SNOMED not publicly available 17:26:30 <Rinke> IanH: ok... I'll remove it 17:26:34 <IanH> I removed (e.g., SNOMED) 17:27:01 <Rinke> alanr: the vote on the CR should say that the at risk is at risk (suggested by pfps ) 17:27:02 <ivan> q+ 17:27:07 <alanr> ack ivan 17:27:25 <IanH> q+ 17:27:30 <Rinke> ivan: just for verification. What does the very first sentence mean? 'resolving the dependencies' 17:27:31 <alanr> ack IanH 17:27:39 <sandro> we're now closing on the loop on the 'exit criteria' left open by the resolution in the last meeting, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-20#resolution_3 17:27:50 <Rinke> IanH: I understood that it should be at least at CR when we are at REC 17:27:55 <Rinke> IanH: only one step behind 17:28:06 <Rinke> pfps: against XML schema datatypes going backwards 17:28:10 <Rinke> ivan: I understand 17:28:20 <sandro> pfps: This is defense against XSD not being in the right process step for us to proceed. 17:28:29 <Rinke> pfps: they are already ok to go on the next step... they are ahead of us, 17:28:34 <Rinke> ivan: but we may be quicker 17:28:36 <alanr> PROPOSED: We are happy with the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24192 other than that we may remove the at risk for rdf:PlainLiteral if appropriate, in the next week 17:28:52 <IanH> q+ 17:28:54 <sandro> +1 17:28:57 <alanr> ack IanH 17:29:11 <hendler> do we need the "in the next week"? 17:29:18 <Rinke> IanH: I don't mind, but I'm not sure why we need to say anything about the at risk thing... that risk just goes away... seems fine 17:29:34 <alanr> PROPOSED: We are happy with the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24192 17:29:41 <Rinke> pfps: if rdf:Text gets fixed in the next week it just goes away 17:29:46 <hendler> q+ 17:29:52 <alanr> ack hendler 17:30:42 <Rinke> hendler: I think peter said somethign important. We don't need the at risk in the CR criteria. because to get to PR we have to demonstrate that... there is another mechanism that deals with the problem if there's a dependency that is not resolved 17:30:54 <Rinke> alanr: prevention... safer to leave it in as is 17:31:02 <Zakim> -alanr 17:31:04 <Rinke> sandro: should be version 24913 17:31:09 <alanr> back in a sec 17:31:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: We are happy with the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24193 17:31:20 <sandro> +1 17:31:20 <Rinke> sandro: do this proposal while we wait on alan 17:31:26 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:31:26 <Zakim> +alanr 17:31:30 <alanr> +1 17:31:34 <Rinke> bijan: that's the current version? 17:31:34 <ivan> +1 17:31:35 <Rinke> sandro: yes 17:31:36 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:31:36 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:31:42 <zimmer> +1 17:31:42 <hendler> friendly amendment - can we make it "We approve" instead of we are happy with? 17:31:43 <MarkusK_> +1 FZI 17:31:43 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE) 17:31:44 <Rinke> Rinke: +1 (Amsterdam) 17:31:49 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:31:55 <bcuencagrau> +1 17:32:11 <msmith> +1 17:32:18 <bijan> +1 17:32:19 <michael_schneider> -1, since I have to think about this 17:32:32 <uli> +1 17:32:45 <michael_schneider> if /formal vote/ than I'm off 17:32:49 <hendler> +1 17:32:57 <Rinke> alanr: I need to understand michael_schneider 17:32:58 <bmotik> +1 17:33:11 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me 17:33:11 <Zakim> michael_schneider should no longer be muted 17:33:30 <Rinke> michael_schneider: I didn't know it would be a formal vote 17:33:58 <Rinke> michael_schneider: it is very important for the OWL full side ... have no clue what OWL entailment checker means 17:34:06 <MarkusK_> I already voted for FZI -- I am the primary representative for FZI. If we cannot agree, FZI will necessarily abstain. 17:34:08 <IanH> q+ 17:34:11 <Rinke> michael_schneider: really impossible to take this exit criterion when taken literally 17:34:25 <Rinke> alanr: we could postpone the discussion 17:34:32 <Rinke> sandro: why not talk about the owl full thing 17:34:35 <alanr> ack IanH 17:34:36 <sandro> d'oh. Michael points out that "Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker." is pretty confusing. 17:35:28 <hendler> I thought the key here was "conformance" - which is defined in the conformance document 17:35:33 <Rinke> IanH: there used to be wording in there that said that 'someone implemented a useful subset'. The reason it was changed... not sure it's really such a problem, since the criteria in conformance say that it should be sound, and that you should give an answer (not a MUST). OWL Full implementations could actually be just sound 17:35:39 <alanr> q? 17:35:43 <sandro> How about: "Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker. Note that these must be sound reasoners, but need not be complete." 17:35:45 <Rinke> IanH: and silent is ok... that's what happens in practice 17:35:54 <Rinke> alanr: sandro is proposing... 17:36:05 <hendler> An OWL 2 Full entailment checker is an OWL 2 entailment checker that takes OWL 2 Full ontology documents as input. It MUST return True only when Ont(d1) entails Ont(d2), and it MUST return False only when Ont(d1) does not entail Ont(d2). It SHOULD NOT return Unknown. 17:36:06 <uli> I'd prefer to leave it as it is 17:36:29 <Rinke> hendler: I'm confused... there's a conformance document which says (see above). Saying conformant is well defined in our document... 17:36:35 <MarkusK_> +1 to Jim 17:36:40 <Rinke> sandro: I'm suggesting adding a note... this is redundant 17:36:58 <Rinke> sandro: michael might not be the only one who gets confused 17:37:14 <uli> "entailment checker" is explained in the conformance document 17:37:26 <sandro> version-3 = "Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker. Note that as per Conformance, these must be sound reasoners, but need not be complete." 17:37:32 <uli> so we don't need to say no more in the exit criteria 17:37:35 <Zhe> :_ 17:37:49 <Rinke> alanr: two solutions... leave as is, add remark that it only needs to be sound 17:39:05 <Rinke> michael_schneider: problem is that for the moment...I will simply proceed and see what happens... two things can happen: OWL 2 full does not go through, or the whole WG cannot go further. But if everyone's happy in the end, there is no problem. But if someone outside the WG lifts his finger that OWL full did not meet the exit criteria... 17:39:18 <Zhe> I like the note idea 17:39:23 <hendler> q+ 17:39:31 <alanr> ack hendler 17:39:36 <uli> Sandro, we don't say anything about soundness for the others... 17:39:37 <Rinke> sandro: would be cheating to not make this note here... hiding it leads to too much ambiguity, people might feel tricked 17:39:38 <uli> yes 17:39:46 <IanH> I don't see a harm in adding the note. 17:39:56 <alanr> q? 17:40:12 <Rinke> bijan: making the world perfectly safe is not realistic... no evidence that anyone would actually do this 17:40:17 <Rinke> sandro: michael just did 17:40:24 <Zhe> syntatic sugar 17:40:34 <uli> asymmetry with others 17:40:35 <bijan> to sandro, michael is in our wg bubble 17:40:35 <sandro> let's please add on Full, "Note that as per Conformance, these must be sound reasoners, but need not be complete." 17:40:37 <Rinke> alanr: could you articulate the reason against saying this... 17:40:48 <Rinke> alanr: what is the actual harm? 17:41:43 <Rinke> hendler: one of the things I will bring up in one of the later docs. We should ..... (didn't get it) 17:41:58 <Rinke> alanr: quick strawpoll... 17:42:01 <sandro> strawpoll: add to Full, "Note that as per Conformance, these must be sound reasoners, but need not be complete." 17:42:05 <sandro> +0.95 17:42:06 <hendler> we should make sure we don't disparage our own designs 17:42:06 <pfps> +0 17:42:10 <Zhe> +1 17:42:14 <ivan> 0 17:42:14 <alanr> +0 17:42:15 <hendler> 0 17:42:17 <Achille> 0 17:42:18 <MarkusK_> 0 17:42:22 <bmotik> +0 17:42:22 <bijan> +1 17:42:24 <ewallace> +0 17:42:25 <Rinke> Rinke: +0.5 17:42:26 <zimmer> +1 17:42:30 <michael_schneider> +0 (hard to tell at the moment) 17:42:32 <msmith> +1 17:42:33 <bcuencagrau> 0 17:42:44 <uli> 0 17:42:58 <Rinke> alanr: no objections... a few plusses.. justifies putting it in 17:43:05 <Rinke> IanH: I'll add it 17:43:18 <hendler> q 17:43:25 <IanH> Done 17:43:45 <sandro> q? 17:43:52 <bijan> Pellet 17:44:11 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24194 17:44:13 <Rinke> alanr: michael are you worried that there won't be sound implementations of OWL 2 Full... just any OWL 2 RL would be a sound implementation... this is not the problem. There will be a lot of sound implementations... Jena, OWLIM whatever... the real problem is that people will say 'hmm, this is just a fake'. 17:44:22 <hendler> what is a sound implementation? what is a complete implementation? has someone proven the OS correct?? Soundness and completeess are not properties of implementations, they are properties of algorithms!!! 17:44:29 <pfps> The defense against Michael's worry is to point to the actual OWL 2 Full implementations. 17:44:40 <IanH> q+ 17:44:43 <hendler> +1 to what Sandro says 17:44:53 <bijan> +1 that's always the case 17:45:00 <Rinke> sandro: our implementation report at the end of CR will list some systems that claim to be OWL 2 Full entailment checkers. If there are credible things that make legitimate claims to be complete OWL 2 Full implementations... that should be ok 17:45:05 <sandro> q? 17:45:15 <alanr> ack IanH 17:45:59 <alanr> PROPOSED: We are happy with the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24195 17:46:07 <Rinke> IanH: I wanted to agreee with sandro... we're overbaking this a bit... in a way these exit criteria are only a small part of the story. IN the end we need to write a report on implementability... if we're really going to do ridiculous things then obviously thge director won't be happy 17:46:19 <hendler> PROPOSED: We approve of the CR Criterion noted in ... 17:46:22 <alanr> PROPOSED: We are happy with the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24195 17:46:24 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:46:24 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:46:26 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:46:38 <alanr> PROPOSED: We approve the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24193 17:46:42 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:46:52 <alanr> PROPOSED: We approve the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24195 17:46:54 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:46:57 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:46:59 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:47:00 <Rinke> Rinke: +1 (UvA) 17:47:02 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE) 17:47:03 <hendler> +1 RPI (believe it or not :-)) 17:47:03 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:47:04 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:47:08 <uli> +1 (Manchester) 17:47:11 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:47:11 <zimmer> +1 (DERI) 17:47:16 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:47:20 <bmotik> +1 (Oxfird) 17:47:20 <IanH> +1 (Oxford) 17:48:13 <Rinke> alanr: good, we are resolved 17:48:15 <alanr> RESOLVED: We approve the CR Criteria noted in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=CR_Exit_Criteria&oldid=24195 17:48:37 <Rinke> subtopic: publication of documents as CR/LC 17:48:38 <alanr> PROPOSED: go ahead with publication of Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization as Candidate Recommendations as per last week's resolution based on the CR exit criteria and with name change from rdf:text to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:48:42 <alanr> q? 17:48:46 <IanH> Hopefully this is easier to agree :-) 17:48:50 <Rinke> alanr: any comments, suggestions? 17:49:22 <pfps> q+ 17:49:29 <pfps> q- 17:49:40 <Rinke> sandro: in my mind this is redundant 17:49:41 <IanH> q+ 17:49:51 <Rinke> alanr: we had this discussion with jim last week.. 17:50:14 <alanr> ack IanH 17:50:14 <Rinke> hendler: I'm happy with it, however, as part of the document you send to the director you need a pointer to the actual vote. Safer to do it here 17:50:15 <IanH> I don't believe we need this vote, we had it last week, it wasn't on the agenda for this week 17:50:20 <Rinke> sandro: sure whatever 17:50:34 <alanr> PROPOSED: go ahead with publication of Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization as Candidate Recommendations as per last week's resolution based on the CR exit criteria and with name change from rdf:text to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:50:37 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:50:38 <Rinke> sandro: I can point at it in two places. 17:50:41 <Rinke> alanr: let's just do it 17:50:41 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:50:43 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:50:43 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:50:47 <Rinke> Rinke: +1 (UvA) 17:50:48 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE) 17:50:51 <IanH> +1 (Oxford) 17:50:58 <zimmer> +1 DERI 17:51:05 <hendler> +1 (RPI) 17:51:06 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:51:11 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:51:14 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:51:32 <IanH> vote early, vote often 17:51:33 <uli> +1 (Manchester) 17:51:34 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:51:38 <alanr> RESOLVED: go ahead with publication of Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization as Candidate Recommendations as per last week's resolution based on the CR exit criteria and with name change from rdf:text to rdf:PlainLiteral 17:52:01 <Rinke> subtopic: publish QRG as LC WD 17:52:10 <alanr> PROPOSED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft 17:52:15 <sandro> :-P michael_schneider 17:52:17 <IanH> YES 17:52:21 <pfps> YES 17:52:22 <bijan> I'm ok with QRC going to LC 17:52:24 <Rinke> alanr: got lost in the traffic on this... do we all agree on its' current form? 17:52:27 <uli> yes, it's done and dusted 17:52:28 <ivan> +1 17:52:35 <alanr> ack ivan 17:52:55 <Rinke> alanr: jim, are you ready to vote on this? 17:52:59 <hendler> +1 RPI 17:53:13 <Rinke> Rinke: +1 (UvA) 17:53:17 <pfps> +1 ALU 17:53:18 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford) 17:53:18 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons) 17:53:18 <Achille> +1 (IBM) 17:53:18 <Zhe> +1 ORACLE 17:53:20 <ewallace> +1 (NIST) 17:53:23 <zimmer> +1 DERI 17:53:27 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI) 17:53:29 <sandro> +1 (W3C) 17:53:35 <msmith> +1 (C&P) 17:53:43 <uli> +1 (Manchester) 17:53:54 <alanr> RESOLVED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as a Last Call Working Draft 17:54:01 <Rinke> subtopic: status report on publication drafts (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl2-overview/) 17:54:23 <Zakim> -hendler 17:54:23 <IanH> q+ 17:54:28 <ewallace> Can you publish? 17:54:30 <alanr> ack IanH 17:54:32 <IanH> q- 17:54:35 <Rinke> sandro: the link confused me... 17:55:01 <pfps> q+ 17:55:03 <Rinke> sandro: the last time I tried to turn the crank. I got stuck on XML errors, and a bunch of wkeryiw 17:55:10 <ewallace> What should we do about the glyphs? 17:55:12 <Rinke> sandro: the XML errors are sort-of fixed... 17:55:14 <IanH> q+ 17:55:24 <pfps> q- 17:55:24 <alanr> ack pfps 17:55:29 <alanr> ack IanH 17:55:29 <Rinke> sandro: we came across the glyphs in the past... vaguely recall boris fixed it 17:55:59 <Rinke> IanH: I was going to say that as far as I know everyone checked the links... noone has any idea on how to check this listing 17:56:20 <Rinke> sandro: some obscure characters that XML doesn't know, or at least doesn't know how to put in PDF 17:56:40 <ewallace> Did Boris fix this for Syntax this time? 17:56:48 <Rinke> sandro: alan, could you help me on this 17:56:51 <Rinke> alanr: yes 17:57:02 <pfps> Pointer please? 17:57:04 <Rinke> sandro: is everyone happy with ... 17:57:06 <Rinke> alanr: chair stuff 17:57:16 <IanH> I asked them; there were no complaints 17:57:19 <Rinke> alanr: send a pointer out, and get comments on email 17:57:25 <Rinke> topic: implementation and test cases 17:57:28 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 17:57:28 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 17:57:33 <sandro> Peter, http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_7 17:58:13 <Rinke> IanH: we now voted to move all of the spec documents to CR, so shift in gear with respect to what we ought to be doing in the WG. WE need to make sure that we do what we need to do, and go to CR as planned 17:58:14 <pfps> "Tame" implementors should start their engines. 17:58:28 <ivan> 'beat the bushes'... 17:58:46 <Rinke> IanH: we need to figure out what the implementations will be that satisfy the exit criteria, need to get the test cases in place etc. 17:58:46 <msmith> Re cases, I've just updated the "test case summary" at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Suite_Status#Test_Case_Summary 17:59:02 <Rinke> alanr: do we want anyone to go over the test cases and report back? 17:59:33 <Rinke> alanr: the mechanism is for the most part in place, but coverage is (judgtment call), my feeling is that people are still looking over it and contributing tests 17:59:52 <msmith> q+ to respond ask about Extra-Credit 17:59:54 <Rinke> IanH: need at least one test that tests all significant features of the language. is that satisfied, mike? 17:59:58 <alanr> ack msmith 17:59:58 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to respond ask about Extra-Credit 17:59:59 <Rinke> alanr: mike, are we there yet? 18:00:18 <MarkusK_> Re coverage: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Test_case_coverage_by_RDF/XML_syntax_feature 18:00:19 <ivan> q+ 18:00:21 <Rinke> msmith: we have the coverage for the RDF predicates of the language. The work that markus did in the wiki is pretty good 18:00:29 <bijan> q+ 18:00:40 <Rinke> msmith: someone might want to pick on the individual cases... but we do have good coverage 18:00:54 <MarkusK_> The link I pasted shows the current coverage for RDF/XML language features 18:01:02 <alanr> ack ivan 18:01:10 <Rinke> msmith: if that answer is acceptable, we had a specific point in the CR exit criteria on different types of test... when do we plan to do that? 18:01:26 <Rinke> ivan: I want to know the mechanism that we ask the implementers to follow 18:01:51 <IanH> For what we did in OWL 1, see: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out 18:01:53 <Rinke> ivan: I'm doing OWL 2 RL, not interested in non-RL tests... we need to tell the story for all the people we contact 18:02:25 <Rinke> ivan: another small thing, if I click on any of the links on the left-hand column in the test case overview. I get a non-wellformed XML parser error in Firefox 18:02:42 <michael_schneider> q+ 18:02:51 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me 18:02:51 <Zakim> michael_schneider should no longer be muted 18:02:54 <michael_schneider> q+ 18:02:57 <Rinke> ivan: what's the story we want to tell the implementers. contacted a few "we might be interested", "not now, maybe later" 18:03:02 <msmith> q+ to respond to ivan 18:03:03 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 18:03:03 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 18:03:04 <pfps> which page is giving errors - links on test suite status page work for me 18:03:08 <msmith> q- 18:03:42 <alanr> ivan, are you asking about how they get the right tests? 18:03:56 <Rinke> IanH: pasted a pointer to the result page that sandro coordinated in the OWL 1 case, and obviously it lists different sections for tests for DL and Full.. some reasoners would do tests in one section, some multiple, skip sections etc... 18:04:01 <msmith> I'm producing the results summary now, based on input described in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Result_Format 18:04:08 <alanr> I'm using mediawiki bot (simple to implement) to gather the tests 18:04:14 <msmith> q+ 18:04:15 <Rinke> ivan: but in technical terms.. how does it go? 18:04:35 <Rinke> IanH: I don't know.. in the past people sent the results to the web in a prescribed form (help from sandro) 18:04:55 <Rinke> msmith: I just put a link on the IRC to the format in which people can send in the result. 18:05:13 <Rinke> alanr: ivan can you review that, ...? 18:05:13 <IanH> q+ 18:05:25 <Rinke> ivan: I can look at that, need to understand the whole process from start to end 18:05:46 <msmith> q+ to respond 18:05:48 <Rinke> alanr: to pick up the tests, you can download them all in OWL, or create a wiki-bot that crawls the wiki 18:06:10 <msmith> http://wiki.webont.org/exports/ 18:06:34 <Rinke> msmith: we do have a wiki export page that outputs some particular subsets, we could have a breakdown by profile. Any implementation that has a bridge to java can use the test harness software 18:06:38 <MarkusK_> q+ 18:06:51 <IanH> Perhaps we could have single-file downloads for each of the profiles? 18:07:03 <Rinke> msmith: implementers can use the test harness, if they can't then there are other options 18:07:05 <msmith> the full export is http://wiki.webont.org/exports/ 18:07:16 <Rinke> ivan: it is important to have one page on the wiki that explains what implementers have to do. 18:07:31 <IanH> +1 to Ivan 18:07:43 <Rinke> alanr: is it important to have profile specific exports? 18:07:46 <sandro> q? 18:07:50 <msmith> OK, I will write this page by next week. 18:07:56 <Rinke> ivan: yes, for me it is... 18:08:06 <IanH> We want as many people as possible to run tests *and* report results; we need to make it *real* easy. 18:08:45 <msmith> ACTION msmith to write a wiki page providing directions for producing implementation results 18:08:45 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith 18:08:58 <alanr> ack bijan 18:09:01 <Rinke> bijan: trying to remember. With respect to the coverage I would expect that we get more tests and feedback when we get to CR... so coverage of tests seems in pretty good shape 18:09:02 <alanr> ack michael_schneider 18:09:03 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me 18:09:04 <Zakim> michael_schneider was not muted, michael_schneider 18:09:05 <msmith> q- 18:09:16 <Rinke> bijan: can handle anything that's not in good shape along the way... implementations more important 18:09:28 <bijan> Why are we reopening the discussion the chair closed? 18:09:34 <pfps> +1 18:09:42 <Rinke> michael_schneider: I think it is possible to select RL and RDF-Based semantics. 18:09:47 <msmith> yes, it is possible to make a test that is explicitly rl and rdf semantics. 18:10:03 <bijan> Actually, I make this a point of order 18:10:09 <pfps> Point of order! 18:10:23 <alanr> i will wait for him to finish 18:10:30 <pfps> PLEASE!@ 18:10:36 <Rinke> michael_schneider: I can offer you something... just submitted for review my tests for OWL 2 Full ... I can add another mark for OWL 2 RL specific OWL 2 Full tests... 18:10:59 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 18:10:59 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 18:11:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Write a wiki page providing directions for producing implementation results [on Michael Smith - due 2009-06-03]. 18:11:03 <alanr> q? 18:11:10 <alanr> ack IanH 18:12:08 <msmith> yes, the exit criteria say "For the purposes of these criteria, we will only consider "Approved" tests which are not "Extra-Credit", and which were approved before some cut-off date, to be determined later, some time during CR. " 18:12:11 <Rinke> IanH: one of the questions raised by mike, was about when the date might be that the test set was closed. in a perfect world, we just keep on adding tests. The way we set the exit criteria, we need to decide at one stage 'these are the tests that need to be passed'. 18:12:35 <Rinke> IanH: for DL we say that each test should be passed by at least one implementation 18:12:36 <ivan> +1 to Ian 18:12:47 <alanr> ack MarkusK_ 18:12:58 <Rinke> MarkusK_: reply to ivan... i have added this export.. 18:13:10 <Rinke> MarkusK_: it is online now... we can add custom exports if people need it 18:13:16 <michael_schneider> q+ 18:13:19 <Rinke> alanr: proposal for when this date should be? 18:13:22 <michael_schneider> zakim, unmute me 18:13:22 <Zakim> michael_schneider should no longer be muted 18:13:25 <alanr> ack michael_schneider 18:13:26 <Rinke> alanr: think about it during the week? 18:13:43 <Rinke> michael_schneider: if it is two weeks from now, it is easy for me... 18:13:55 <michael_schneider> zakim, mute me 18:13:55 <Zakim> michael_schneider should now be muted 18:14:00 <Rinke> ivan: should be perfectly ok 18:14:06 <msmith> I would prefer something further. E.g., July 1 18:14:21 <IanH> correct 18:14:22 <Rinke> alanr: relevant for just OWL 2 DL... no other dependencies for a specific set of tests 18:14:22 <michael_schneider> I was talking about OWL 2 /Full/ test cases 18:14:25 <msmith> q+ 18:14:30 <alanr> ack msmith 18:14:47 <Rinke> msmith: july 1 would still be two weeks before implementers report 18:14:54 <Rinke> msmith: still enought time 18:14:56 <pfps> In general, running the test suite *again* should be extremely easy. 18:14:58 <Rinke> alanr: my sense as well 18:15:12 <Rinke> alanr: any problem with july 1st? ivan, michael? 18:15:32 <Rinke> ivan: you want july 1st to be the date that implementers report? 18:15:43 <michael_schneider> 1st of july is /too/ easy ;-) 18:15:44 <Rinke> alanr: no, that's when adding tests is officially closed 18:15:57 <IanH> OK for me 18:16:01 <Rinke> alanr: good enough to have it in the notes, or vote? 18:16:09 <Rinke> alanr: ok, just note 18:16:20 <msmith> ACTIOn-338? 18:16:21 <Rinke> ivan: trying to be difficult... do we have an action on the 'one page' thing? 18:16:24 <IanH> Mike took that action 18:16:37 <trackbot> ACTION-338 -- Michael Smith to write a wiki page providing directions for producing implementation results -- due 2009-06-03 -- OPEN 18:16:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/338 18:16:39 <IanH> Me? 18:17:02 <msmith> eyball 18:17:08 <Rinke> alanr: does anybody claim to have a species validator? 18:17:23 <Rinke> alanr: there was a claim that jeff pan has something 18:17:24 <IanH> q+ 18:17:43 <Rinke> IanH: I asked him, he is using the OWL API and wasn't aware it was doing repairs and thing 18:17:44 <bijan> q+ 18:17:51 <IanH> ack IanH 18:17:53 <alanr> ack IanH 18:18:02 <IanH> ack bijan 18:18:25 <Rinke> bijan: I will have (soon) OWL XML translator and ... (built on the OWL API) 18:18:38 <bijan> s/{soon{ 18:18:39 <bijan> er 18:18:52 <Rinke> alanr: people who care about the tests should .. 18:18:54 <bijan> s/(soon)/profile validator based on OWL/XML and a 18:19:28 <Rinke> alanr: what's the status on GRDDL... sandro is that still on your plate? 18:19:37 <Rinke> sandro: nominally it's on my plate 18:19:37 <IanH> Congratulations to one and all on CR votes. 18:19:44 <Rinke> alanr: we should monitor that 18:19:45 <IanH> Virtual beers on me as per usual. # 18:19:49 <Rinke> s/whould/should 18:20:04 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace # 18:20:04 <uli> bye # 18:20:06 <Rinke> Rinke: bye 18:20:06 <Zakim> -msmith # 18:20:07 <MarkusK_> bye 18:20:08 <Zakim> -bmotik # 18:20:08 <Zhe> bye 18:20:09 <Zakim> -pfps 18:20:09 <Zakim> -Sandro 18:20:10 <Zakim> -IanH 18:20:10 <zimmer> bye 18:20:10 <Zakim> -uli 18:20:11 <Zakim> -Ivan 18:20:11 <Zakim> -alanr 18:20:14 <Zakim> -Achille 18:20:15 <bmotik> bmotik has left #owl 18:20:15 <Zakim> -Zhe 18:20:18 <Zakim> -bijan 18:20:20 <Zakim> -MarkusK_ 18:20:22 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau 18:20:24 <Zakim> -Rinke 18:20:24 <ivan> ivan has left #owl 18:20:25 <Zakim> -zimmer 18:20:27 <Zakim> -michael_schneider 18:20:29 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended 18:20:32 <Zakim> Attendees were bijan, Rinke, bmotik, Sandro, IanH, pfps, alanr, zimmer, michael_schneider, bcuencagrau, Ivan, MarkusK_, +1.518.276.aaaa, hendler, uli, Evan_Wallace, +1.202.408.aabb, msmith, 18:20:34 <Zakim> ... Zhe, Achille # 18:20:49 <Rinke> rrsagent, pointer? 18:20:49 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-owl-irc#T18-20-49 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00001053