These minutes have been approved by the Working Group and are now protected from editing. (See IRC log of approval discussion.)

See also: IRC log

Boris Motik, Evan Wallace, Sandro Hawke, Jeff Pan, Rinke Hoekstra, Zhe Wu, Ian Horrocks, Jie Bao, Jeremy Carroll, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Alan Ruttenberg, Markus Krötzsch, Uli Sattler, Bijan Parsia, Achille Fokoue
Peter Patel-Schneider (on a plane)
Michael Schneider (traveling)
Elisa Kendall (speaking at Semantic Technology Conference, see
Deborah McGuinness (also speaking at Semantic Technology Conference, by the way, the meeting is great!)
Mike Smith (also at SemTech)
Ivan Herman (SemTech)
Carsten Lutz (traveling)
Martin Dzbor (speaking at an outreach event in London)
Ian Horrocks
Jeff Pan

ADMIN (20 min)

Agenda amendments?

Accept Previous Minutes

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (07 May)

Rinke Hoekstra: Peter told me they were ok
Zhe Wu: +1 accepted

RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (07 May)

Action items status

Action 129 Done

Action 131 Done

Action 133 Done

Boris Motik: It'll be hard to see the difference w.r.t. subsumption: individuals (anonymous or not) are parts of the ABox and therefore usually don't affect the subsumption.
Boris Motik: responding to Alan asking about skolem difference visible via classification/consistency check [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Bijan Parsia: bmotik, yeah

Action 142 Done

Boris Motik: I actually believe that Bijan's Web page says as much as can be said about the difference between the skolem and nonskolem semantics.

Action 145: done

Action 146: done

Action 149: done

Bijan Parsia: bmotik, I'm certainly drawing a blank :(
Bijan Parsia: +1 to endorsement

Ian Horrocks: any comments on Jeremy's review on RIF?

... any pointer?

Bijan Parsia: Peter and I responded to his finalized comments with approval

Bijan Parsia: (Pointer to thread where peter and I approve.)
Evan Wallace: I will continue my Syntax doc review for 1 more week
Boris Motik: The only way to show differences in the skolem and nonskolem semantics by means of subsumption is to use ObjectHasValue with anonymous individuals.
Bijan Parsia: bmotik, yes.

Action 43: close

Action 139: continue

Action 143: continue

Action 112: continue

Evan Wallace: I continued the UFDTF action Jeff

Action 144: close

Action 147: continue

Ian Horrocks: Jeremy's review on RIF

Alan Ruttenberg: get rid of stuffs that are not related to this WG

Bijan Parsia: Isn't it moot now?
Jeremy Carroll: B) On the editors note, at the end of section 1, we advise that RDF
Jeremy Carroll: entailment is much less interesting than the others (simple, RDFS, D,
Jeremy Carroll: OWL DL, OWL Full), and we would not expect opposition to RIF not
Jeremy Carroll: supporting it.

Ian Horrocks: any comments?

Bijan Parsia: I'm indifferent. I think it's harmless to leave it in. Given that its sent and non binding anyway...does it matter?

Jeremy Carroll: ok

PROPOSED: Jeremy's e-mail is official WG view, except point B

Zhe Wu: +1

RESOLVED: Jeremy's e-mail is official WG view, except point B

General Discussion: Issue 97

Ian Horrocks: there is a written proposal from Sandro

Boris Motik: Could Sandro please summarize his proposal?


Ian Horrocks: comments?

Bijan Parsia: agree with sandro in general

... GRDDL is not clear what are required though

... sandro's proposal is as good as anything else

Ian Horrocks: any comments on ording?

Bijan Parsia: parallel way is fine as long as it is clear

Ian Horrocks: not asking to come up with implementation might not be proper

Evan Wallace: let's move on

PROPOSED: proceed on parallel version of Sandro's suggestion for handling GRDDL Issue 97, as per

Sandro Hawke: +1 of course  :-)
Zhe Wu: +1

RESOLVED: proceed on parallel version of Sandro's suggestion for handling GRDDL Issue 97, as per


Proposals To Resolve Issues

Issue 4

Issue 4 allow reordering in functional syntax, per Alan's email

Ian Horrocks: we could resolve this without taking any action

PROPOSED: Issue 4 allow reordering in functional syntax, per Alan's email

Zhe Wu: +1
Sandro Hawke: +0 haven't followed, sorry
Bijan Parsia: The proposal is wrong

PROPOSED: resolve Issue 4 as per

Jeremy Carroll: 0 (I'm concentrating on the next issue)
Sandro Hawke: +0 haven't followed this issue, sorry

RESOLVED: resolve Issue 4 as per

Issue 71

Alan Ruttenberg: some comments from SWCG

Sandro Hawke: seems that both OWL and RIF are working this

... which one comes up with a proposal will be the one

... need to have a join TF

Alan Ruttenberg: how about name space?

Sandro Hawke: there are some problem of RDF name space

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, i noticed that this is a new pattern syntax. (distinctly not pcre)

Jeremy Carroll: there is a language matching language, which is different from the XML matching language. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: he stopped
Ian Horrocks: hope he is still alive

(jeremy, could you summarise your comments please?)

Jeremy Carroll: are you talking about the data: scheme?

Ian Horrocks: who else should be in the TF?

... besides sandro

Bijan Parsia: boris from owl, peter from RIF

Sandro Hawke: Boris has been working on the texts

Ian Horrocks: ack jeremycarroll

Alan Ruttenberg: swcg harmonization issue
Jeremy Carroll: we should invite I18N WG to participate in the TF [Scribe assist by Jeremy Carroll]
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

Bijan Parsia: Let's just find an editor or two and have them write something and make sure it's okay with the stakeholders. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: +1 Bijan

Ian Horrocks: good to keep the process lightweight

Bijan Parsia: If no one else volunteers, I shall, assuming it's roughly as easy as sandro delineated :)
Jeremy Carroll: we should invite people like: "You're welcome to join, but you might prefer to review the finished document" [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Sandro Hawke: s/people/i18n/

Sandro Hawke: there is a dependency on the XML WG too

Sandro Hawke: s/XML/XML Schema/
Jeremy Carroll: ^XML^XML Schema

Ian Horrocks: could we agree on bijan's proposal?

Sandro Hawke: is OWL 1 issue with closed namespace same as RDF closed namespace issue? [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Jeremy Carroll: I'm convinced by sandro's comment - ask stakeholders after we have a doc

Bijan Parsia: we could have a TF when people disagree

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: who will work on this?

Alan Ruttenberg: we need to work out a solution for the namespace

Sandro Hawke: we could leave the namespace as an open issue

Jeremy Carroll: To me the langPattern is an

OWL functionality, not an RDF one, whereas the class of all

internationalizedstrings is possibly an RDF concept
Bijan Parsia: Conditionally!

Sandro Hawke: I heard bijan would like to act on it

Alan Ruttenberg: RDF/XML: Any other names

are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when encountered,

but should otherwise behave normally.

Boris Motik: no opinion on namespace; also busy with other work in the WG

Alan Ruttenberg: anyone on call can work on this?

Jeremy Carroll: I believe the RDF Syntax text is meant to be forward compatible ...

ACTION: Bao create a new document as the spec for owl:internationalizedString / rif:text, including open issue discussion of namespace

trackbot-ng: Created Action 150 - Create a

new document as the spec for owl:internationalizedString / rif:text, including open issue discussion of namespace [on Jie Bao

- due 2008-05-28].

ACTION: jie bao to edit langed literal document

trackbot-ng: Created Action 151 - Bao to edit langed literal document [on Jie Bao - due 2008-05-28].

Issue 123

Boris Motik: OWL-R-DL support some QCRs

... OWL-R-Full should cover the same set of features

... To address Issue 123 only some editorial work is needed

Zhe Wu: +1

Bijan Parsia: +1 to the editorial gerrymander

People agreed that to address Issue 123 only some editorial work is needed

Issue 123: close

Issue Discussions

Issue 111

Boris Motik: We might want to take up

imports and versioning today out-of-order. This is a fresh issue that, given the recent discussion, might be gotten out of the way


Bijan Parsia: the processing model is unclear

... adding more properties without semantics is worrying

Alan Ruttenberg: 123 has been updated to be editorial. boris, feel free to close

Issue 123: close

Alan Ruttenberg: tend to agree with bijan

... not sure what to do with imports

Boris Motik: signal to tools are not needed

Alan Ruttenberg: what if it says nothing but imported one says something

Sandro Hawke: q+ to reply to Boris about

"it's just a syntax error" to give DL to an EL++ system --- of course you want to give the user a better error message, don't


Bijan Parsia: useful to distinguish DL and Full semantics

... also might be useful in some use cases

Boris Motik: Sandro, sure; however, my point

is that this is defined by the syntax itself. There is no need to say "this ontology should be interpreted as EL++": if it falls

into the EL++ fragment, it is an EL++ ontology.
Zakim: sandro, you wanted to reply to Boris

about "it's just a syntax error" to give DL to an EL++ system --- of course you want to give the user a better error message, don't

Boris Motik: The only problem is where we are changing the semantics.
Jeff Pan: +1 boris

Uli Sattler: should not have any semantics; it would be helpful to signal sth

Uli Sattler: I like intendedProfile as a hint, but not as formal semantics [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]

Bijan Parsia: Is this different than owl:deprecatedClass?
Sandro Hawke: sure -- error message are a pretty trivial point.
Ian Horrocks: ack jeremycarroll
Zakim: jeremycarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro
Zakim: bijan, you wanted to ask sandro about the brokenness
Sandro Hawke: +1 Bijan -- don't reject Full document if you are Full.... repair with warning, etc.
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro thing

Ian Horrocks: continue discussion by emails

Issue 124

Sandro Hawke: maybe in e-mail, Uli, you can explain to me why the having formal meaning to this is harmful?

Evan Wallace: sounds good to me

Boris Motik: this is not intended to be used by people

... mainly for some process in the background e.g. moving expressions from one side to the other

... so the complement is implicitly there and it should be in the language

Bijan Parsia: support it strongly

Boris Motik: Could we perhaps handle imports?

Bijan Parsia: Agenda amendment (last minute) is there a publication plan?

Evan Wallace: In 4 minutes?

Ian Horrocks: too less time to allow detailed discussions on the remaining actions

Evan Wallace: sort of
Alan Ruttenberg: we're out of time. point proved

(better next time then)

Bijan Parsia: any plan for republication?

Ian Horrocks: should get the reviews first

Last modified on 14 July 2008, at 09:48