14:03:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
14:03:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/10-owl-irc
14:03:53 <alanr> zakim, this is owl
14:03:53 <Zakim> ok, alanr; that matches SW_OWL()10:00AM
14:03:58 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
14:03:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4, msmith, [IBM], Alan_Ruttenberg
14:03:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, jjc, alanr, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, msmith, trackbot-ng, sandro
14:04:00 <Zakim> +??P13
14:04:06 <jjc> zakim, ??P13 is me
14:04:06 <Zakim> +jjc; got it
14:04:11 <bmotik> Zakim, ??p4 is me
14:04:11 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
14:04:16 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
14:04:16 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
14:04:38 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
14:04:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik (muted), msmith, [IBM], Alan_Ruttenberg, jjc
14:04:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, jjc, alanr, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, msmith, trackbot-ng, sandro
14:05:05 <alanr> zakim, [IBM] is Achille
14:05:05 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
14:05:09 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
14:05:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik (muted), msmith, Achille, Alan_Ruttenberg, jjc
14:05:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, jjc, alanr, Zakim, Achille, bmotik, msmith, trackbot-ng, sandro
14:05:47 <msmith> ScribeNick: msmith
14:06:42 <alanr> I like the fact that imports is by location, but two use cases aren't satisfied - Tool independent redirection to off line versions, for editing purposes, and versioning, as you mention below, and as described on the imports page.
14:07:29 <msmith> alanr: open for discussion on current state
14:08:12 <jjc> We are discussing the text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0110
14:08:31 <msmith> achille: preferred solution would provide redirection, e.g., as in XML schema with a hint in the ontology
14:08:41 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports
14:09:27 <msmith> ...by location doesn't give as much flexibility.
14:09:35 <bmotik> q+
14:09:40 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
14:09:40 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
14:09:58 <bmotik> q-
14:10:01 <msmith> bmotik: achille, which solution are you referring to?
14:10:24 <msmith> achille: owl 1.0 and submission version of owl 1.1
14:11:06 <msmith> bmotik: but 1.0 was by location, 1.1 spec is by ontology URI, current proposals are by location with implementation override
14:11:48 <msmith> achille: 1.0 by location is not what we want
14:11:54 <msmith> ...and I thought 1.1 was same
14:12:19 <alanr> is the word "magic" there?
14:12:19 <msmith> bmotik: no, 1.1 is by ontology URI (resolution to physical location is left unspecified)
14:12:28 <alanr> -1 to magic
14:14:01 <msmith> bmotik: this is much about personal preference.  on web is 1 use cae, but in many cases very difficult
14:14:28 <msmith> ...current proposal is by location with explicit statement about implementation overriding
14:14:56 <msmith> jjc: three points
14:15:32 <msmith> ...1) we mentioned giving suggestion for location to physical URI.  we can write that up
14:15:43 <alanr> hasn't gone away...
14:16:26 <msmith> ...2) ability to import RDF files, not OWL files (e.g., the foaf schema).  I.e., cases where ontology label is not present
14:17:48 <msmith> ...i.e., a change to by name might change how we interop with owl 1.0
14:19:09 <msmith> msmith: I am comfortable with current proposal (as described by boris) and some sort of hints.  but hints need not be normative
14:19:45 <alanr> What is the point of having an ontology header at all? (just to poke at that)
14:20:12 <msmith> bmotik: to address jjc use case 2, it could be handled by making a special condition when header is not present
14:20:27 <msmith> achille: this sounds like by name
14:20:28 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
14:20:42 <msmith> bmotik: on the web name == location
14:20:50 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
14:20:58 <alanr> hi peter
14:21:05 <alanr> zakim, bookmark
14:21:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'bookmark', alanr
14:21:08 <msmith> achille: concern is that we're talking about URI, not URL.  this is conceptual
14:21:10 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:21:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see bmotik, msmith, Achille, Alan_Ruttenberg, jjc, Peter_Patel-Schneider
14:21:13 <msmith> q+
14:21:20 <msmith> q-
14:21:30 <alanr> rrsagent, bookmark
14:21:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/03/10-owl-irc#T14-21-30
14:21:57 <msmith> achille: I might phrase this differently.  It is import by name, and by default location should be the same location
14:22:07 <msmith> bmotik: that's the way I want to look at it.
14:22:34 <msmith> achille: ok.  this is a matter of taste and perspective
14:22:43 <pfps> it needs to made readable
14:22:56 <alanr> rrsagent, make log public
14:23:48 <msmith> alanr: jjc's point on files w/o ontology header is new and important
14:24:07 <msmith> ...I like assumption of import by location
14:24:46 <msmith> ...I like minimum specified for import redirection (mapping of names)
14:25:28 <jjc> q+ to suggest *informative* remapping rules ...
14:25:39 <msmith> ...can we discuss why we need ontology header at all?  I don't see need to check name vs location loaded from
14:25:41 <bmotik> q+ to discuss checking ontology headers
14:26:35 <msmith> pfps: my recent email covers my position
14:26:56 <msmith> ... http://www.w3.org/mid/20080307.100929.46881308.pfps@research.bell-labs.com
14:28:03 <msmith> jjc: I'd prefer *informative* mapping rules b/c this is an interoperability point that is not too important
14:28:09 <pfps> +1 to jeremy's position
14:28:26 <alanr> ack jjc
14:28:26 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to suggest *informative* remapping rules ...
14:28:29 <bmotik> +1 to jeremy
14:28:40 <alanr> -1 to not important
14:29:38 <msmith> bmotik: if name and location should be the same, then it is dangerous if header is different.  additional check, in case where header is present,  is helpful.
14:29:38 <alanr> q+
14:29:42 <alanr> ack bmotik
14:29:42 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to discuss checking ontology headers
14:29:43 <bmotik> q-
14:30:20 <msmith> alanr: I judge importance of mapping higher than stated
14:30:39 <msmith> ...curious to what damage would be with simple normative mechanism
14:31:29 <msmith> ...specify mapping file, tool should respect unless it is explicitly overridden
14:31:59 <pfps> what is an "ontology header"?
14:32:14 <pfps> what is an "ontology element"?
14:32:30 <msmith> alanr: re ontology header, I *thought* that avoiding repeated import of the same ontology would be presented as a motivating use case
14:32:33 <pfps> yes, but which one?
14:32:52 <pfps> the RDF situation is completely broken
14:32:59 <msmith> bmotik: ontology header is naming triple
14:33:12 <msmith> alanr: as pfps points out, there can be more than one
14:33:39 <pfps> q+
14:33:45 <alanr> ACK alanr
14:33:47 <msmith> alanr: I've never run into the case where tool helps user based on checking the header
14:33:50 <alanr> ack pfps
14:33:53 <jjc> q+ to argue for ontology header (as devil's advocate ....)
14:34:19 <alanr> jjc - how about saying what the damage is for having normative mechanism
14:34:30 <pfps> that doesn't work unless you change imports and ontology properties
14:34:36 <msmith> bmotik: I agree the RDF case is broken, but that is b/c there isn't a ontology to graph mapping
14:34:49 <alanr> ack jjc
14:34:49 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to argue for ontology header (as devil's advocate ....)
14:35:19 <msmith> pfps: a couple problems on rdf side re: what is the ontology?
14:35:22 <bmotik> bmotik: We could fix RDF to assign at most one URI to each RDF graph
14:36:28 <alanr> we could change this
14:36:35 <msmith> bmotik: in many cases ontology is not explicitly typed
14:36:47 <msmith> jjc: I think to be legal 1.0 is must be explicit
14:36:56 <msmith> bmotik: I don't see that in many cases on the web
14:37:32 <msmith> jjc: type triple is in imported, not importer
14:37:59 <msmith> alanr: what's damage of normative mechanism
14:38:42 <alanr> q+ to say that all redirection mechanism boil down to the same thing
14:38:43 <msmith> jjc: wg are bad at specifying anything.  design by committee is wrong answer unless required.
14:39:03 <alanr> q+ to add my suggestion allows override
14:39:04 <bmotik> But would we close this down?
14:39:05 <msmith> ...being normative would prevent implementers from being smarter than us
14:39:16 <alanr> q?
14:39:21 <bmotik> Developers could always implement *additional* mechanisms...
14:39:28 <alanr> ack
14:39:55 <msmith> alanr: agree with boris' irc comments.  normative mechanism is only a baseline and any other mechanism could override the normative mechanism
14:40:06 <pfps> q+
14:40:09 <msmith> ... at least then, we would have the basic interop
14:40:12 <alanr> ack pfps
14:40:16 <alanr> alanr alanr
14:40:19 <alanr> q+ pfps
14:40:22 <alanr> ack alanr
14:40:22 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say that all redirection mechanism boil down to the same thing and to add my suggestion allows override
14:40:33 <msmith> ... current tools all have the same basic mapping approach
14:40:35 <pfps> q+ to talk about installation difficulties
14:40:40 <alanr> ack pfps
14:40:40 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about installation difficulties
14:40:44 <msmith> jjc: ontology header useful for metadata about the ontology
14:41:03 <msmith> pfps: worries about working system that doesn't have root privileges
14:41:21 <msmith> ... you're talking about a common mapping between multiple tools and multiple users
14:42:34 <msmith> alanr: interop here means moving from tool to tool w/o modifying my ontologies, or not changing mapping mechanism
14:42:53 <msmith> pfps: I'm unconvinced, you're only solving 1/10th of the problem
14:42:59 <bmotik> I agree with Peter
14:43:09 <jjc> q+ to support peter
14:43:11 <msmith> ...it will only work sometimes, therefore cause more problems than it solves
14:43:13 <bmotik> +q
14:43:42 <msmith> ...normative mechanism should facilitate collaborative editing
14:43:45 <alanr> ack jjc
14:43:45 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to support peter
14:43:50 <msmith> alanr: that's a different use case
14:44:37 <alanr> q+ to ask what root privs have to do with anything
14:44:59 <alanr> q+ don't see we can't specify
14:45:00 <msmith> jjc: when talking applications vs. ontologies worrying about overcoming things like security issues is necessary, and those things are outside our area
14:45:08 <alanr> ack bmotik
14:45:29 <msmith> bmotik: I'm fine saying there is some mechanism, there need not be an override
14:45:49 <jjc> q+ to give a further problem of interop
14:46:09 <msmith> ...this could be difficult b/c, e.g., where is the mapping file located?  local homedir, on web, file open dialog, database?
14:46:12 <alanr> you have to give a uri to your tool somehow.
14:46:19 <msmith> ...it would be useful, but I don't think it is necessary
14:46:20 <alanr> ack alanr
14:46:20 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask what root privs have to do with anything
14:46:29 <msmith> ...and it may be  too complex
14:46:40 <jjc> q-
14:46:45 <msmith> ... doing so may require too many assumptions to be useful
14:46:58 <msmith> alanr: I don't see the complexity
14:47:10 <pfps> q+
14:47:22 <jjc> q+
14:47:35 <msmith> ... any tool needs some way to specify where an ontology is.  the mapping file requires the same thing.
14:47:37 <alanr> ack pfps
14:48:24 <msmith> pfps: if you had, any tool could point to some location which would contain some mapping files, then its easier, but then user must arrange to have the mapping files be the same
14:48:26 <bmotik> +1 to peter
14:49:39 <msmith> ... I see problems for implementers b/c functionality would only be used sometimes
14:49:44 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl
14:49:50 <msmith> ... the inconsistency would be problematic
14:49:59 <bmotik> +q to give an example of a system that thes not use files at all
14:50:13 <alanr> ack jjc
14:50:26 <msmith> alanr: this makes everyone suffer b/c some people will do silly things.  but we know this can be useful in some cases
14:51:05 <alanr> q+ to ask how this is any different from import by location?
14:51:06 <msmith> jjc: maybe a tool specific URI format.  so remapping interoperably is already limiting storage types
14:51:38 <msmith> ....e.g., jena users have complained about internal URIs that aren't meant for interoperability
14:52:24 <msmith> bmotik: ontoprise people use ontologies without any files b/c they are all stored in a database.  Requiring a "file" doesn't make sense
14:52:29 <alanr> q+ to ask where we have consensus
14:52:29 <alanr> ack bmotik
14:52:29 <alanr> ao
14:52:30 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to give an example of a system that thes not use files at all
14:52:49 <alanr> ack alanr
14:52:49 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask how this is any different from import by location? and to ask where we have consensus
14:53:01 <msmith> alanr: do we agree on import by location?
14:53:06 <jjc> +1
14:53:11 <msmith> bmotik: with override
14:53:14 <msmith> alanr: yes.
14:53:15 <jjc> +1
14:53:15 <Achille> +1 with override
14:53:17 <msmith> +1
14:53:21 <bmotik> +1 to import by location with an override
14:53:56 <msmith> alanr: not in agreement on what is in ontology header.  there are issues with current rdf version.  we don't have a mechanism to fix that.
14:54:08 <bmotik> 0
14:54:09 <msmith> alanr: consensus on informative rediction being acceptable?
14:54:43 <msmith> s/rediction/redirection/
14:54:44 <pfps> I'm willing to have the spec say that tools can override
14:54:56 <jjc> +0
14:55:02 <bmotik> +0 because I see it as useful, but if it costs us too much time to come up, then I would drop it.
14:55:02 <Achille> +1
14:55:09 <msmith> alanr: we agree we might specify *informative* method for redirection
14:55:11 <msmith> ?
14:55:36 <pfps> +.5
14:55:44 <msmith> +0 with boris' comments
14:56:03 <msmith> alanr: we have close enough to agreement
14:56:15 <jjc> q+ to note weakness of vote for informative mechanism
14:56:19 <pfps> and versioning
14:56:22 <alanr> ack jjc
14:56:22 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to note weakness of vote for informative mechanism
14:56:25 <msmith> no one objects
14:56:43 <msmith> jjc: there were 2.5 votes for informative mechanism, which appears to be below consensus
14:56:47 <msmith> -1 to raising this in main wg
14:57:07 <msmith> jjc: maybe we should raise at main wg
14:57:12 <alanr> q?
14:57:19 <msmith> alanr: just meant as straw poll, to see where we were
14:57:49 <bmotik> +q to answer about the DB case
14:58:03 <msmith> alanr: case of database storage of ontologies, if imports are specified by location we don't handle those cases
14:58:23 <msmith> q+ to ask clarifying question for db case
14:58:34 <msmith> alanr: override makes it possible
14:59:05 <alanr> ack bmotik
14:59:05 <Zakim> bmotik, you wanted to answer about the DB case
14:59:06 <msmith> bmotik: yes.  the database case is something a tool can do
14:59:38 <alanr> bye
14:59:39 <msmith> ...point is define as by location with override.  then tool can do whatever it wants
14:59:40 <msmith> q-
14:59:42 <Zakim> -jjc
14:59:58 <msmith> ...if informative mapping, then tool can ignore
15:00:08 <msmith> ...if normative, it would constrain tool
15:00:17 <msmith> alanr: you may have misunderstood
15:00:23 <msmith> ... proposal is 3 levels
15:00:32 <msmith> ... 1) by location (in ontology)
15:00:44 <msmith> ... 2) mapping specified
15:00:49 <msmith> ... 3) override by tool
15:01:10 <msmith> bmotik: how did we get there?  that's not how I understood the straw poll
15:02:12 <msmith> alanr: I was addressing the database case. and whether it would make a *normative* mapping mechanism worse
15:02:35 <msmith> bmotik: normative mechanism puts assumption on how tools work with ontologies
15:02:48 <alanr> a tool can do whatever it wants. But if it does nothing, then it respects the mechanism specified.
15:03:14 <pfps> +1
15:03:17 <Achille> +1
15:03:18 <msmith> alanr: sounds like one more meeting, then go back to wg?
15:03:19 <bmotik> +1
15:03:20 <msmith> +1
15:03:29 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
15:03:31 <Zakim> -msmith
15:03:31 <Zakim> -bmotik
15:03:32 <Zakim> -Achille
15:03:33 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
15:04:30 <alanr> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:04:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/10-owl-minutes.html alanr
15:04:50 <alanr> rrsagent, make minutes world-readable
15:04:50 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world-readable', alanr.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:04:58 <alanr> rrsagent, make minutes world readable
15:04:58 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes world readable', alanr.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:05:05 <alanr> rrsagent, make minutes public
15:05:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', alanr.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:05:41 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
15:05:43 <Zakim> SW_OWL()10:00AM has ended
15:05:46 <Zakim> Attendees were msmith, Alan_Ruttenberg, jjc, bmotik, Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:17:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #owl
17:33:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl