Chatlog 2009-05-27

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.

# ...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:
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:
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>
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>
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_>
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>
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>
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>
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,
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 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 
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
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>
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
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
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
17:46:42 <pfps> +1 ALU
17:46:52 <alanr> PROPOSED: We approve the CR Criteria noted in
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
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 (
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,
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
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:
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:
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
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>
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
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>
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