Chatlog 2009-07-15

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

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

<sandro> ScribeNick: baojie
<sandro> Present: Sandro, ruttenberg, Evan_Wallace, baojie, msmith, MarkusK, Ivan, IanH, mschneid, bmotik, zimmer, Zhe, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Achille
13:02:18 <baojie> Topic: Admin
13:02:18 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
13:02:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, alanr, Evan_Wallace, IanH, baojie, msmith, MarkusK_, Ivan, ??P1
13:02:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, MarkusK_, IanH, Zakim, ewallace, schneid, bmotik, alanr, ivan, zimmer, baojie, sandro, trackbot
13:03:32 <baojie> roll call
13:03:58 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
13:03:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, alanr, Evan_Wallace, IanH, baojie, msmith, MarkusK_, Ivan, schneid (muted), bmotik (muted), +03539149aacc
13:04:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, MarkusK_, IanH, Zakim, ewallace, schneid, bmotik, alanr, ivan, zimmer, baojie, sandro, trackbot
13:04:28 <baojie> subtopic: Agenda amendments?
13:04:29 <baojie> no
13:05:45 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
13:05:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, alanr, Evan_Wallace, IanH, baojie, msmith (muted), MarkusK_, Ivan, schneid (muted), bmotik (muted), zimmer, Zhe
13:05:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zhe, msmith, MarkusK_, IanH, Zakim, ewallace, schneid, bmotik, alanr, ivan, zimmer, baojie, sandro, trackbot
<baojie> subtopic: Previous Minutes
13:06:08 <baojie> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (1 July)
13:06:16 <alanr> I looked
13:06:19 <alanr> ok for me
13:06:25 <baojie> Ian: i think it is in good shape
13:06:26 <zimmer> looks good
13:06:31 <ewallace> I thought they were fine.  Of course.
13:06:43 <baojie> ... ok, passed
13:07:06 <IanH> RESOLVED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-07-01
13:07:31 <baojie> Subtopic: Action items status
<baojie> Ian: there is no pending review actions.
13:07:48 <baojie> Subsubtopic: Action 331
<baojie> Action 331: About 1 month out to do accessibility audit / Bijan Parsia
13:08:11 <baojie> Ian: how urgent it is
13:08:16 <baojie> Sandro: it is urgent
13:08:17 <schneid> q+
13:08:20 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
13:08:20 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
13:08:26 <IanH> ack schneid
13:08:30 <baojie> Ian: I will get Bijan acts on this
13:08:36 <ewallace> Sandro: I'd say we have to have it done by the next publication.
13:08:46 <baojie> schneid: what the problem is?
13:09:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me
13:09:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
13:09:59 <alanr> I sent him a quick skype note, but am not sure he is on line now
13:10:10 <ewallace> Sandro: the main thing is that there must be alt text for any figures.
13:10:14 <sandro> sandro: the accessibility audit is to make sure that all our documents are appropriately accessible to people with various disabilities, eg with alt text on images, etc.
13:10:35 <bmotik> ZAkim, unmute me
13:10:35 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
13:10:37 <sandro> action: ian to push along the accessibility audit of our documents
13:10:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Push along the accessibility audit of our documents [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-07-22].
13:10:48 <baojie> Action: on Ian to ping Bijan or somebody else for solution to ACTION-331 (accessibility audit)
13:10:48 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
13:10:56 <sandro> I got in baojie 
13:11:01 <sandro> I mean, "I got it"
13:11:01 <baojie> Action: Ian to ping Bijan or somebody else for solution to ACTION-331 (accessibility audit)
13:11:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-346 - Ping Bijan or somebody else for solution to ACTION-331 (accessibility audit) [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-07-22].
13:11:30 <baojie> Ian: Action 344 Clarity the description of datatype maps in Syntax and Conformance / Boris Motik
<baojie> Subsubtopic: Action 344 
<baojie> Action 344: Clarity the description of datatype maps in Syntax and Conformance / Boris Motik 
<baojie> bmotik: I have done something but haven't sent email yet.
13:11:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
13:11:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
13:12:01 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
13:12:01 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
13:12:06 <baojie> Ian: Boris, you may send an email and let's talk offline
13:12:21 <schneid> q+
13:12:24 <baojie> topic: Issues/comments
13:12:24 <baojie> subtopic: Michael Schneider's proposal to make certain ontology properties of OWL 2 Full into annotation properties
13:12:46 <baojie> schneid: there are several ontology properties in OWL 2 Full
13:13:03 <baojie> ... that are annotation properties in the structural spec
13:13:31 <baojie> ... ontology properties are the ones map from ontologies to ontologies
13:13:46 <baojie> ... they are not annotation properties in OWL 2 DL
13:14:07 <baojie> ... That may lead to problems in RL rules
13:15:28 <baojie> ... My proposal is to have the ontology properties be additionally annotation properties
13:15:53 <baojie> ... This will only change the RDF-based semantics
13:16:11 <baojie> Ian: idea? I trust Michael
13:16:22 <ivan> q+
13:16:22 <alanr> what happens if someone was querying for x ?type :OntologyProperty
13:16:26 <baojie> schneid: It is a minor change
13:16:27 <ivan> ack schneid
13:16:29 <alanr> backwards compatibility issue?
13:16:31 <IanH> ack ivan
13:16:51 <baojie> Ivan: CR is about implementation issue. I won't worry about that. Let's wait for feedback.
13:17:23 <IanH> PROPOSED: make changes as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jun/0095.html
13:17:33 <ivan> +1
13:17:35 <ewallace> +1 
13:17:36 <IanH> +1
13:17:37 <baojie> +1
13:17:38 <alanr> 0
13:17:56 <zimmer> 0
13:18:04 <MarkusK_> 0
13:18:07 <alanr> q+ to ask about backwards compatibility
13:18:53 <IanH> ack alanr
<baojie> alanr: will there still be ontology properties? 
13:18:53 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask about backwards compatibility 
13:18:58 <baojie> schneid: the changes is trivial
13:19:08 <baojie> ... it is a conservative change
13:19:18 <alanr> ok
13:19:41 <alanr> alan changes vote to +1
13:19:53 <IanH> schneid: changes are conservative
13:19:59 <ivan> schneid: all property that were ontology properties stay so
13:20:16 <ivan> ... they just get an additional annotation property typing
13:20:25 <ivan> +1
13:20:33 <IanH> PROPOSED: make changes as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jun/0095.html
13:20:34 <ivan> +1
13:20:34 <ewallace> +1
13:20:36 <MarkusK_> +1 (convinced now :)
13:20:37 <IanH> +1
13:20:37 <Zhe> +1
13:20:37 <baojie> +1
13:20:38 <schneid> +1
13:20:39 <alanr> +1
13:20:44 <zimmer> +1
13:20:48 <msmith> +1
13:20:57 <bmotik> +1
13:21:01 <IanH> RESOLVED: make changes as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jun/0095.html
13:21:35 <baojie> subtopic: Michael Schneider's proposal to require at least one property for key axioms
13:21:51 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jul/0005.html
13:22:56 <baojie> schneid: there is no constraint on the size of the argument list of owl:hasKey
13:23:18 <baojie> ... so it is possible to have it on an empty list of properties
13:23:25 <bmotik> And I've already fixed this
13:23:38 <baojie> ... my proposal is to restrict hasKey to be on at least one property
13:23:40 <schneid> zakim, mute me
13:23:40 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
13:23:53 <baojie> Ian: it is a bug - Boris has already fixed it
13:24:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: fix problem with key axioms as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jul/0005.html
13:24:23 <zimmer> +1
13:24:24 <baojie> +1
13:24:26 <IanH> +1
13:24:28 <msmith> +1
13:24:29 <ivan> +1
13:24:30 <Zhe> +1
13:24:34 <MarkusK_> +1
13:24:38 <bmotik> +1
13:24:57 <alanr> +1
13:25:06 <IanH> RESOLVED: fix problem with key axioms as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jul/0005.html
13:25:07 <schneid> +1
13:25:23 <baojie> subtopic: Holger Knublauch's LC Comment -- Request for OWL 2 vocabulary file
13:25:29 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jul/0007.html
13:25:35 <schneid> q+
13:25:40 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
13:25:40 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
13:25:44 <IanH> ack schneid
13:25:49 <baojie> Ian: he is asking for an OWL file, similar to that of OWL 1
13:26:45 <baojie> schneid: They need a file of axiomatic triples of OWL 2 Full which completes that of OWL 1 Full. We may add to RDF-based Semantics a section on axiomatic triples. That may also help developers. 
13:26:47 <msmith> q+ to ask if the file had any WG status in WebOnt
13:26:52 <IanH> q?
13:26:58 <ewallace> It's just an rdf description of the OWL2 vocabulary, like we have for OWL1, isn't it?
13:27:04 <schneid> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal#Theorem-PR1
13:27:58 <schneid> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Appendix:_Axiomatic_Triples_.28Informative.29
13:29:18 <baojie> schneid: We may have the RDF semantics rules explicit encoded 
13:29:28 <IanH> q?
13:29:39 <baojie> ... I can do this
13:30:04 <IanH> q?
13:30:10 <IanH> ack msmith
13:30:10 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask if the file had any WG status in WebOnt
13:30:12 <alanr> zakim, what is the passcode?
13:30:12 <Zakim> the conference code is 6951 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), alanr
13:30:13 <IanH> q?
13:30:24 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
13:30:26 <baojie> Mike: i don't have a problem with schneid's proposal
13:30:35 <ewallace> owl.owl or owl.rdf?
13:30:55 <schneid> owl.owl is in the OWL Reference, so its informative I guess
13:30:59 <baojie> Mike: just to check what WG status the owl.owl file will be. The problem is whether it will be normative or informative.
<baojie> Ian: We have decided earlier not to produce an owl.owl file for OWL 2, since the one for OWL 1 was not widely used. Anybody think we should have such a file for OWL 2?
13:31:19 <IanH> q?
13:31:23 <ivan> q+
13:31:24 <ewallace> pfps Please use code OWL1 (6951) instead of
13:31:25 <schneid> q+
13:31:26 <ewallace> "OWLWG"
13:31:37 <pfps> q+
13:31:37 <IanH> q?
13:31:42 <IanH> ack ivan
13:33:11 <schneid> q-
13:33:12 <IanH> q?
13:33:14 <sandro> q+
13:33:22 <zimmer> ivan: the OWL uri should be dereferencable
13:33:23 <alanr> I see http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.rdf
13:33:30 <IanH> ack pfps
13:34:05 <zimmer> ... and dereferencing to an outdated doc is maybe not a good idea
13:34:37 <alanr> Ivan, where is this currently served from?
13:34:48 <IanH> q?
13:35:08 <IanH> pfps: doesn't want to have something that is only likely to be misunderstood
13:35:33 <baojie> Ivan: there should be a file containing all OWL 2 axiomatic triples. 
13:35:54 <baojie> ivan: as schneid proposed
<baojie> sandro: you should provide the RDF triples in some reasonable way.
13:35:34 <schneid> q+
13:35:40 <alanr> ah, ok at http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# there is owl served
13:35:44 <alanr> currently
13:35:47 <IanH> ack sandro
13:36:04 <pfps> Umm.  There are an infinite number of axiomatic triples even for RDFS.
13:36:24 <alanr> might take a while to download ;-)
13:36:37 <IanH> q?
13:36:41 <sandro> :-)  alan
13:36:42 <IanH> ack schneid
13:36:52 <baojie> schneid: my proposal is to the axiomatic triples explicit by ourselves
13:37:26 <baojie> ... the RDF-based semantics gives one possible way to create it
13:38:22 <IanH> q?
13:38:30 <baojie> ... my prposal will not add new information to doc
13:38:59 <baojie> ... just have explicit encoding of the rdf-based semantics (axiomatic triples)
13:39:18 <IanH> q?
13:39:25 <baojie> Ian: I think that's a separate issue. You are talking about a spec document
13:39:29 <IanH> q?
13:39:49 <baojie> ... the others are talking about file of the OWL 2's URI
13:39:59 <IanH> q?
13:40:31 <IanH> q?
13:40:40 <schneid> zakim, mute me
13:40:40 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
13:40:43 <alanr> minimal dereferencable document could be a set of triples with each vocabulary term rdfs:isDefinedBy link to spec
13:40:58 <baojie> Ivan: my understanding is that they are the same thing. Michael's proposal is to create an RDF file of axiomatic triples.
13:41:27 <schneid> yes, this is absolutely specific to OWL 2 Full
13:41:53 <baojie> Ian: I think Michael's proposal is to add something to RDF-based semantics.
13:42:19 <baojie> ... and you (Ivan) think is to extract that part into a file
13:41:57 <IanH> q?
13:42:04 <ewallace> How is this different from what we have for OWL1 now?
13:42:08 <pfps> q+
13:42:21 <IanH> ack pfps
13:42:46 <baojie> pfps: the current doc is not a set of axiomatic triples
13:43:03 <ivan> q+
13:43:04 <schneid> q+
13:43:04 <IanH> q?
13:43:09 <ivan> q+
13:43:18 <schneid> q-
13:43:35 <baojie> pfps: there was an RDF schema for OWL 1 
13:43:35 <Zakim> +[IBM]
13:43:40 <schneid> it is *extremely* incomplete
13:43:45 <baojie> Ian: it was incomplete, only those that can be captured in RDF.
<baojie> ivan: I don't understand what Peter says.
<baojie> ian: what peter means is that the intention of the doc is to provide an RDF schema for the structural spec. 
13:43:48 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
13:43:48 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
13:43:49 <IanH> q?
13:43:52 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
13:43:52 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
13:43:52 <IanH> ack ivan
13:43:53 <ivan> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="equivalentClass">
13:43:53 <ivan> <rdfs:label>equivalentClass</rdfs:label>
13:43:53 <ivan> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf"/>
13:43:53 <ivan> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Class"/>
13:43:53 <ivan> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Class"/>
13:43:54 <ivan> </rdf:Property>
13:44:07 <baojie> Ivan: that's an example
13:44:10 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
13:44:22 <baojie> ... this is that schneid will generate
13:44:25 <schneid> these are *4* axiomatic triples
13:44:51 <IanH> q?
13:44:53 <schneid> all of them match the discussion in Section 6 of the RDF-based Semantics, AFAICS
13:44:54 <baojie> ... I don't understand Peter
13:44:59 <pfps> There are some axiomatic triples here, but this is *not* an axiomatization of OWL.   There are, as well, some non-axiomatic triples in the document.
13:45:03 <IanH> q?
13:45:06 <sandro> q+
13:45:25 <IanH> q?
13:45:37 <IanH> ack sandro
13:45:47 <pfps> There are only *3* axiomatic triples, the rdfs:label triple is not axiomatic.
13:45:55 <baojie> Ivan: we can't have the file unchanged using the same uri of OWL (now for OWL 1)
13:46:02 <schneid> axiomatic triples are simply ground semantic conditions without a premis
13:46:31 <schneid> the axiomatic triples of RDFS are also *not* a complete axiomatization of the RDFS semantics
13:46:33 <pfps> q+
13:46:42 <IanH> ack pfps
13:46:57 <schneid> equivalentClass rdf:type rdf:Property :)
13:47:19 <IanH> sandro: could use content negotiation to serve relevant content
<baojie> sandro: if you ask for RDF, you get RDF, and if you ask for HTML, you get HTML. You may also ask for other things, like axiomatic rules in RIF for OWL 2 Full.
13:47:34 <IanH> q?
13:47:42 <pfps> q+
13:47:47 <IanH> q?
13:47:52 <IanH> ack pfps
<baojie> pfps: I don't think content negotiation is a right way to go.
13:47:58 <schneid> my whole proposal is only about convenience for implementers, nothing would change technically in any form (apart from that it's an informative section anyway)
13:48:03 <alanr> q+ 2 questions: 1) What are requirements  2) Who has jurisdiction on what is served from there
13:48:21 <alanr> q+ to ask 2  questions: 1) What are requirements  2) Who has jurisdiction on what is served from there
13:48:26 <IanH> q?
<baojie> ian: I think everybody agree there should be something here, which should not be the outdated OWL file.
13:48:28 <baojie> pfps:  I disagree. I don't think we should change the old OWL file
13:48:34 <baojie> Ivan: I object (pfps)
13:48:52 <baojie> ... rdf users will dereference that uri
13:49:10 <baojie> ... it is should be correct and not incomplete
13:49:36 <baojie> ... if we decide OWL 2 reuses OWL uri, then that file should be updated
13:49:40 <IanH> q?
13:49:48 <pfps> q+
13:50:02 <baojie> Ian: my understanding is to add more axiomatic triples to the old file
13:50:08 <baojie> Ivan: yes
13:50:20 <baojie> ... we have to make it up to date
13:50:13 <IanH> ack alanr
13:50:13 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask 2  questions: 1) What are requirements  2) Who has jurisdiction on what is served from there
13:50:15 <ewallace> I would like to see an rdfs vocabulary file for OWL 2 somewhere.
13:50:47 <IanH> q?
13:50:52 <zimmer> I'm personally in favour of what Ivan says, and I guess that my institute would be in favour of it too
13:51:04 <IanH> q?
13:51:29 <baojie> alanr: I want to know the minimal requirement for the file and 
<baojie> ... I wonder if it is in the jurisdiction of the WG, or W3C
13:51:35 <alanr> ok
13:51:37 <IanH> ack pfps
13:51:57 <IanH> sorry Peter
13:52:02 <IanH> You are next
13:52:17 <alanr> 1) dereference to something meaningful and up to date
13:52:18 <baojie> Ivan: I don't have an answer to the jurisdiction question.
<baojie> ...the minimal requirement is to have it useful and up-to-date
13:52:24 <alanr> 2) follow linked data practices
13:52:27 <IanH> ack pfps
13:52:37 <baojie> pfps: I'm not opposed to change it
13:52:51 <schneid> q+
13:52:53 <baojie> ... I'm concerned what kind of document to put here. It provide the same kind of information against the norm work. That's not what Michael proposed to do.
13:52:55 <IanH> q?
13:52:58 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
13:52:58 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
13:53:04 <ewallace> What Peter suggests would make me happy.
13:53:13 <alanr> q+ why do we have to leave the document in the current form?
13:53:38 <IanH> ack schneid
13:53:49 <alanr> q+ to ask why do we have to leave the document in the current form?
13:54:07 <IanH> q?
13:54:10 <baojie> Ian: Michael's proposal is to add axiomatic triples as described in RDF-based semantics rules
<baojie> schneid: This is really an OWL 2 Full thing, not for OWL 2 whole. The old owl.owl file is outdated. I prefer to have it replaced.
13:54:44 <IanH> ack alanr
13:54:44 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask why do we have to leave the document in the current form?
<baojie> alanr: the question is whether we change the file, or to change it to adapted purposes for new requirements and practices like linked data.
<baojie> Ian: I'm not clear about the purpose. Since Holger just requests the owl file, why not just update that file.
13:54:52 <schneid> zakim, mute me
13:54:52 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
13:55:09 <IanH> q?
13:55:26 <IanH> q?
13:55:37 <alanr> then that should be clarified
13:55:42 <IanH> q?
13:55:47 <alanr> that's why I asked Ivan about requirements
13:56:08 <ewallace> Holger's request: I would appreciate if the OWL working group would deliver (and maintain) 
13:56:10 <IanH> q?
13:56:10 <ewallace> an RDF specification of the OWL 2 vocabulary, as discussed below, in the 
13:56:11 <ewallace> RDF/XML exchange format. 
13:56:15 <alanr> ivan?
13:56:38 <pfps> My understanding is also that Holger just wants an update of the information in the document.
13:57:03 <baojie> Ivan: my proposal is to let Micheal to produce an rdf/xml or turtle file
13:57:14 <IanH> q?
13:57:18 <baojie> ... and let's see what it will be
13:57:46 <baojie> ... and postpone the decision
13:57:50 <IanH> q?
13:57:57 <pfps> The current document is mostly domains and ranges for the owl vocabulary.
13:58:06 <baojie> ... let's separate the two problems
13:58:52 <baojie> Ian: I don't think schneid's proposal is a starting point for the deferencing problem
13:59:04 <IanH> q?
13:59:05 <baojie> ... we may need to talk offline.
13:59:07 <schneid> I can do this quickly
13:59:26 <schneid> (one could say it's editorial :)
13:59:30 <alanr> if there are changes then needs to be vote
13:59:38 <schneid> ok!
13:59:48 <baojie> ... schneid may add the proposed changes to the RDF-based semantics doc
14:00:20 <IanH> q?
14:00:37 <IanH> q?
14:00:38 <baojie> topic: Implementation and Testing
14:00:48 <baojie> subtopic: Test suite
14:00:58 <schneid> q+
14:01:02 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
14:01:02 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
14:01:03 <IanH> ack schneid
14:01:05 <baojie> Ian: Michael loaded RL test suites
14:01:36 <MarkusK_> there are now 84 tests uploaded by Michael
14:01:43 <IanH> q?
14:03:17 <baojie> schneid: last time I proposed 750 cases to cover OWL 2 Full. there are two concerns: no current reasoner can handle some cases. To have them proved: to have them past two implementations, or <scriber lost>. 
14:03:25 <baojie> ... I checked with Ivan's implementation. 84 cases succeeded. 
14:03:42 <schneid> the testcases: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/User:Michael_Schneider
14:04:04 <IanH> q?
14:04:13 <schneid> zakim, mute me
14:04:13 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
14:04:15 <baojie> Ian: we have a test case and passed as least one implementation
14:04:18 <msmith> yes, this works for me
14:04:24 <ivan> +1
14:04:39 <schneid> btw, these are really the simplest and most straightforward testcases in my suite
14:04:43 <schneid> yes, 84
14:05:00 <IanH> PROPOSED: Approve the 84 OWL Full/RL tests added by Michael Schneider
14:05:05 <msmith> +1
14:05:08 <MarkusK_> +1
14:05:22 <ivan> +1
14:05:23 <baojie> +1
14:05:26 <alanr> +1
14:05:33 <zimmer> +1
14:05:43 <IanH> RESOLVED: Approve the 84 OWL Full/RL tests added by Michael Schneider
14:05:44 <msmith> action msmith to change the status on these 84 tests from Proposed to Approved, with a reference to the minutes
14:05:44 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - msmith
14:05:48 <IanH> q?
14:05:57 <msmith> action smith to change the status on these 84 tests from Proposed to Approved, with a reference to the minutes
14:05:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-347 - Change the status on these 84 tests from Proposed to Approved, with a reference to the minutes [on Michael Smith - due 2009-07-22].
14:05:59 <IanH> q?
14:06:14 <baojie> Ian: how many approved test cases we have?
14:06:17 <schneid> http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Test:Approved
14:06:21 <ewallace> 220?
<baojie> Ian: with the 220, we have 304. Do we have sufficient approved tests? What about the proposed tests that are not yet approved?
14:07:41 <baojie> msmith: Some’s syntax should be updated for the new OWL API. 
<baojie> ...There are small number of extra credit test cases. 
14:08:08 <IanH> q?
14:08:27 <baojie> ... on remaining OWL full test cases from WebOnt, we don't have two implementations yet.
14:08:31 <IanH> q?
14:08:48 <schneid> q+
14:08:51 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
14:08:51 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
14:08:53 <IanH> ack schneid
14:09:12 <baojie> Ian: For OWL full test cases from WebOnt, we need to check their correctness. I think we have decided not to approve them. What the OWL full people think?
14:10:10 <baojie> schneid: I haven't checked. Some are very complicated.
14:10:11 <msmith> +1 to leave them
14:10:18 <MarkusK_> +1
14:10:26 <schneid> zakim, mute me
14:10:26 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
14:10:35 <msmith> q+
14:10:39 <baojie> Ian: i think we should leave the OWL full test cases not approved
14:10:47 <IanH> ?
14:10:49 <IanH> q?
14:10:54 <IanH> ack msmith
14:11:24 <schneid> schneid: I won't find the time to check the WebOnt tests, and I remember finding some of them to be pretty strange
14:11:29 <baojie> msmith: schneid's test cases have many from the OWL 1 test cases
14:11:36 <msmith> yes
14:11:38 <IanH> q?
14:11:39 <baojie> ... they should be updated
14:12:01 <IanH> q?
14:12:22 <baojie> Ian: I'm happy with the current coverage of test cases. We need to contact implementers and say the test cases are already.
14:12:42 <msmith> I'll send an email when I take care of the status changes
14:12:52 <baojie> Ian: one more thing, extra credit test
14:13:12 <baojie> ... some of them should not be here
14:13:32 <baojie> ... esp. some from OWL 1 test cases that are not for correctness, but for stress test.
14:13:47 <msmith> here is an example with very high cardinality restrictions http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-description-logic-906
14:13:59 <IanH> q?
14:14:04 <msmith> q+
14:14:10 <IanH> ack msmith
14:14:13 <MarkusK_> +1 to have performance-focused tests extra credit
14:14:39 <baojie> ... test cases should be on correctness, not performance. The ones with cardinality restrictions or large ABox should be extra credit tests.
14:14:42 <ivan> q+
14:14:56 <IanH> q?
14:14:59 <IanH> ack ivan
<baojie> mike: we can put together a good list that are problematic for implementation.
14:15:23 <baojie> Ivan: I'm not against this, but we need to be careful
14:15:41 <baojie> ... the test cases are very useful
14:15:54 <IanH> q?
14:16:24 <baojie> Ian: i agree
14:16:29 <alanr> q+ to ask do we say anything about passing tests in conformance?
14:16:34 <IanH> q?
14:16:39 <IanH> ack alanr
14:16:39 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask do we say anything about passing tests in conformance?
14:17:00 <baojie> ... what I proposed to have performance-focussed tests as extra credit test cases
14:17:06 <alanr> good thanks
14:17:15 <Zakim> -alanr
14:17:40 <alanr> zakim, what is the passcode?
14:17:40 <Zakim> the conference code is 6951 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), alanr
14:17:46 <Zakim> +alanr
14:17:47 <IanH> q?
14:17:48 <baojie> ... not every implementation may pass them
14:17:53 <alanr> no
14:17:56 <IanH> ack alanr
<baojie> alanr: do we say about the test cases' conformance?
14:18:32 <msmith> +1 to this suggestion
14:18:43 <baojie> Ian: We don't, but we mentioned in basic criteria for implemenation to app all the tests. 
<baojie> ... For actions: I will send the lists of extra credit test cases and why, then if nobody objects, we will let Michael to redefine them. 
14:18:58 <IanH> q?
14:19:36 <baojie> Ian: anything on implementation?
14:19:40 <IanH> q?
14:19:41 <msmith> yes.
14:19:48 <baojie> subtopic: Implementations
14:19:53 <msmith> profile is ok, species is untested
14:20:02 <msmith> yes
 14:20:23 <baojie> Ian: one task is to push the OWL API people about species validation
14:20:40 <msmith> action ian to ask owlapi devs about species validation
14:20:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-348 - Ask owlapi devs about species validation [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-07-22].
14:21:02 <IanH> q?
14:21:11 <baojie> topic: Advancing documents to Proposed Recommendation
14:21:11 <baojie> subtopic: Features "At-Risk"
14:21:32 <baojie> Ian: as scheduled, we will make decision at the end of the month
14:21:56 <IanH> q?
14:22:09 <pfps> I think that what we want is some message from implementers that they have successfully implemented the at-risk features.
14:22:12 <schneid> Shouldn't this be decided AFTER the call of implementation finishes
14:22:25 <baojie> ... my understanding is that it should be based on implementation experiences
14:22:28 <IanH> q?
14:22:43 <pfps> I don't think that we should wait - we can even now ask implementers about this particular part of the spec.
14:23:03 <IanH> q?
14:23:55 <ivan> grddl
14:23:56 <ewallace> GRDDL
14:23:57 <msmith> g***l
14:24:13 <ivan> q+
14:24:26 <baojie> Ian: sandro is working on that (GRDDL)
14:25:05 <pfps> if there are no needed changes for the UFDs then we might not need to do much
14:25:11 <IanH> q?
14:25:13 <baojie> Ivan: user facing documents 
14:25:27 <baojie> Ian: we don't have any comments
14:26:23 <baojie> ... we skip CR for UFDs
14:26:30 <pfps> We actually did have a comment on a UFD - a glitch in Primer
14:26:59 <IanH> q?
14:21:11 <baojie> subtopic: Schedule
14:27:52 <baojie> Ivan: schedule is tight
14:28:19 <baojie> Ian: let's focus on documents
14:28:31 <schneid> think about the AtRisk stuff!!!
14:28:46 <baojie> Ivan: I think that depends on implementations, we can't vote on documents today
14:29:21 <baojie> Ian: we have to vote in 2 weeks, pending implementation reports
14:29:34 <IanH> q?
14:29:39 <baojie> ... we need to announce it today
14:29:55 <alanr> was this contingent on release on july 1st?
14:29:59 <alanr> or was it 8 weeks in CR
14:30:11 <baojie> Sandro: we slipped at least 1 week
14:31:05 <schneid> what about 8th of August?
14:31:09 <baojie> Ian: we delay to mid Aug and still catch the schedule
14:31:29 <schneid> q+
14:31:30 <ewallace> Announcing this today  sounds reasonable.
14:31:34 <ivan> ack ivan
14:31:43 <msmith> I have to drop off.  thanks everyone
14:31:48 <Zakim> -msmith
14:31:49 <pfps> You could announce the no-problems schedule and see if everyone is OK with it.
14:31:54 <baojie> Sandro: shall we assign reviewers?
14:32:00 <IanH> q?
14:32:02 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
14:32:02 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
14:32:03 <ewallace> Citations will change.
14:32:07 <IanH> ack schneid
14:32:15 <baojie> Ian: i don't think we need internal reviewers, since the docs are not changed
14:33:10 <IanH> q?
14:33:22 <schneid> zakim, mute me
14:33:22 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
14:33:23 <pfps> So schedule is announce now, get reports ready for end of July at latest, vote on 6 Aug.
14:33:28 <IanH> q?
14:33:28 <pfps> That is fine by me.
14:33:42 <IanH> q?
14:33:45 <pfps> s/6 Aug/first Wed in Aug/
14:33:50 <baojie> Ivan: on planning
14:34:39 <IanH> q?
14:34:56 <baojie> Ian: adjourn
14:35:15 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
14:35:18 <schneid> bye
14:35:18 <baojie> ... I will send emails about the next meeting
14:35:19 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
14:35:20 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
14:35:21 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:35:21 <alanr> thanks Ian 
14:35:22 <zimmer> buy buy
14:35:25 <Zakim> -baojie
14:35:28 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:35:30 <Zakim> -schneid
14:35:31 <Zakim> -zimmer
14:35:35 <Zakim> -IanH
14:35:37 <Zakim> -bmotik
14:36:33 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
14:36:42 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
14:44:52 <Zakim> -Achille
14:50:57 <Zakim> -Zhe
14:55:58 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, alanr, in Team_(owl)16:59Z
14:56:00 <Zakim> Team_(owl)16:59Z has ended
14:56:01 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, alanr, Evan_Wallace, +1.518.276.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, baojie, msmith, MarkusK_, Ivan, IanH, schneid, bmotik, zimmer, Zhe, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Achille