<scribe> ScribeNick: MartinD

<pfps> I got kicked off a minute ago, so try again

<pfps> not since I turned off my speakers :-)

zakimm, mute me

<alanr> markus, will you be able to scribe until end of call?

<sandro> IanH, I'm going to be a bit late to the meeting, sorry.

<bijan> I request tha nary-data predicates be put on the General Discussions list

<bijan> There is quite a worked out proposal: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_proposal

Roll call

<ewallace> Agenda amendments: I have change the deadline for action 112 so this need not be discussed

<alanr> noted

<bijan> And there is an issue: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/5

<bijan> Great

<alanr> no

<MarkusK> alanr, I think so -- is there another scribe before me or am I the only one?

I am scribing.... no probs... things setup

alanr: we're starting

Agenda amendments

Alanr: F2F - we're settling 18-29 July at MIT

<alanr> 28-29

a/18/28

<IanH> Is it just me or has the line gone dead?

<diegoc> i hear just static

<alanr> static

<IanH> here too

<JeremyCarroll> liar

<ewallace> Sound like background noise

<alanr> mutes baojie

<IanH> better!

Alanr: F2F - we're settling 28-29 July at MIT

<Rinke> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/41712/f2f3_dates/results

alanr: topic on issues raised and how handled
... talking to IanH and things are going to change how issues are handled, raised,
... there was an email about first batch of issues to review

Pending actions

alanr: four points - update on RDF mapping (ISSUE 115)
... ISSUE 137, ISSUE 120, ISSUE 138

{Action|115} Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion/Boris

PROPOSED: the above issues to be considered done

<bijan> My overdue acitions got siderailed by the easyclasskey discussion so remain undone

<bijan> Should be done in a few days

RESOLUTION: SSUE 137, ISSUE 120, ISSUE 138, ISSUE 115 done

Previous minutes

<pfps> minimally acceptable - scribes should prefix their comments with their names

alanr: are minutes acceptable?

<uli> I will change my comments...

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (16 April)

RESOLUTION: Accept Previous Minutes (16 April)

Action 115 (Update the RDF mapping with the accepted resolution of ISSUE-12 as per Peter's suggestion/Boris)

<bijan> Scroll up in the log

<bijan> bijan : My overdue acitions got siderailed by the easyclasskey discussion so remain undone

<bijan> bijan : Should be done in a few days

bijan: should be done in a few days

Jeremy: to review doc on OWL compatibility with RIF - prob. mid May

Raised Issues

alanr: will be timed to 30 mins
... two raised issues 113 (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/113)
... Open/Shut per Jeremy's note (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0198.html)

<JeremyCarroll> issue-113: I am OK with this (but still -epsilon vote!)

alanr: Issue 115 Icon needed for the WG pages.

<pfps> i'll remind him

alanr: minor change, not related to OWL
... Issue 120 Bug fixes to OWL 1 Semantics/Backwards compatibility
... considered editorial, already updated to reflect the issue
... any further issues
... proposals to resolve issues
... {Issue|22} Syntactic sugar for a rule, per email

<JeremyCarroll> +1

alanr: we suggest to close it with no action

markusk: ok to close but there are some issues that may violate rules in the future, in theory problematic

alanr: does this affect spec?

markusk: if you want to express...

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention possibility of postponement

Jeremy: maybe we should postpone these issues to future WG-s?

Uli: agrees to close this issue
... maybe consider this in the next extensions to OWL

<MarkusK> OK, I am fine with that.

uli: might not be right point to talk about this, also late?

alanr: non-structural constraints in the current work?

<alanr> closed: "no action" sort of postponed.

<Rinke> this email from Carsten just came in, http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.0804231914440.2230%2540frege.inf.tu-dresden.de

uli: some work can be done, but not really to change it all now

alanr: nothing to do on this now...

<ewallace> me too

PROPOSED: Consider ISSUE 22 formally postponed

<MarkusK> +1 to postpone

<uli> +1

<JeremyCarroll> +1

<alanr> +1

<bmotik> +1

+1

<Rinke> +1

<diegoc> +1

<IanH> +1

<msmith> +1

<bijan> +1

RESOLUTION: Consider ISSUE 22 formally postponed

Issue 57 Errata in OWL 1.0 documents,

alanr: some errors spotted in OWL doc, since they are not worked on, we should close or postpone this
... suggests postponing

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to further argue for postponement

JeremyCarroll: probably postpone is better

<ewallace> postpone is better

<bijan> None of the erros show up in OWL2 yes?

alanr: strawpoll on postpone vs. close

<JeremyCarroll> I will vote 0 but don't wish to argue further

<ewallace> postpone

<bmotik> Close

<pfps> close

<JeremyCarroll> 0 (neither postpone nor close)

<Rinke> close, I guess

<alanr> 0

<IanH> close

<uli> close

<diegoc> 0

<baojie> 0

0

<bijan> Close

<msmith> clsoe

alanr: let's close it then

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE 57

<JeremyCarroll> 0

<ewallace> 0

<JeremyCarroll> as moot

<JeremyCarroll> 0

<bmotik> +1

<alanr> +1

<ewallace> 0

<pfps> +1 to close

<uli> +1

<IanH> +1

<bijan> +1 to the moot

<Rinke> +1 close

PROPOSED: Issue 57 Errata in OWL 1.0 documents closed as moot (not relevant)

<msmith> +1 to close

<Elisa> 0

<diegoc> +1

<MarkusK> +1

RESOLUTION: Issue 57 Errata in OWL 1.0 documents closed as moot (not relevant)

Issue 106 OWL 2 namespace per proposal

alanr: what about namespaces? we keep old one, so OWL2 has the same namespace as the old one

bmotik: are we talking about RDF only or also about XML

alanr: only about RDF

<bijan> +super1

<alanr> PROPOSED Resolve Issue 57 by saying that new OWL 2 vocabulary goes in old OWL 1 namespace

<JeremyCarroll> 0 (there are differences of opinion in HP)

<bmotik> +100

<pfps> +1 to make owl2 be the same as owl :-)

<alanr> +1

<ewallace> 0

+1

<Rinke> 0

<baojie> 0

<IanH> +1

<diegoc> +1

<uli> +1

<bijan> +1

<Elisa> 0

<MarkusK> +1

<alanr> RESOLVED Resolve Issue 57 by saying that new OWL 2 vocabulary goes in old OWL 1 namespace

Issue 63 Defining an RDFS compatible semantics

alanr: not sure if to accept this as a real issue

<JeremyCarroll> +1

alanr: should we close it completed

<alanr> PROPOSED Close Issue 63 as done.

<ewallace> +1

<alanr> +1

<pfps> +1 to agree that we're doing what we should

<Rinke> +1

<bmotik> +1

0

<msmith> +1 to close ISSUE-63

<MarkusK> +1

<diegoc> +1

<uli> +1

<IanH> +1

<Elisa> +1

<baojie> +1

<alanr> RESOLVED Close Issue 63 as done.

Issue discussion

Issue 119 Russel paradox in OWL Full due to self restrictions.

alanr: OWL full comprehension issue

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to ask peter about solipism

JeremyCarroll: to members of previous OWLWG, whether there is new evidence to reconsider comprehension principle?

pfps: relationship between DL and Full needs rethink
... if comprehension principle goes away

alanr: what do we lose if we go the wway Jeremy proposed

JeremyCarroll: deleting all comprehension principles allows us to rethink all relations, practically that might not be valuable?

pfps: one can do a patch to keep things the same,
... that might be adequate

<JeremyCarroll> Have I seen this patch?

alanr: action on Peter or Ian?

IanH: agrees with Peter, needs convincing that we should completely revise OWL Full semantics
... this might be close to "out of scope" w.r.t. our charter

<bijan> I wouldn't mind a new owl full, whether we can agree on the new version is a different issue :)

alanr: someone should coordinate, sheperd the patching process

<IanH> OK

<scribe> ACTION: IanH to sheperd/coordinate the patching process (per ISSUE 119) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH

Issue 97 Add GRDDL to OWL/XML Syntax

alanr: anyone willing to take this issue?

bijan: wants to say a thing on GRDDL

<IanH> ACTION: IanH to sheperd/coordinate the patching process (per ISSUE 119) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH

<JeremyCarroll> I think we need the XSLT!

<IanH> RSSAgent claims not to recognise me -- I will do it the old fashioned way!

bijan: this seems to be almost editorial, depends on what level we are looking at this...
... there might be issue with going only for XSLT transformations

<JeremyCarroll> That's a real difference of opinion

<Rinke> Think I agree with bijan on this point, esp. since the syntax is still in flux

alanr: new information; why don't we ...

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to Bijan

alanr: discuss it later when there are others like Ivan and Sandro

JeremyCarroll: we may get into maintenance problem; can clearly state that text is normative

bijan: with OWL API we already have pretty reliable implementation, no point in preferring one implementation or that it should be part of OWLWG deliverables

<ewallace> OWL API relation to OWL2 spec?

<bijan> OWL API tracks the OWL2 spec

alanr: my concern was satisfied with GRDDL; the main thing now is an easy, compatible translation

bijan: there was supposed to be spec and then possibly different implementations?

JeremyCarroll: GRDDL addresses how to do transformation from XSLT 1
... that was recommended

<JeremyCarroll> That's cute!

alanr: there is a trick, if you want to create a transformation into a language, create a trivial XSLT that replaces the output with the translation... can be done

<bijan> As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation.

<bijan> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#txforms

<scribe> ACTION: alanr to explore whether a simple transformation via XSLT would work in this case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr

Other issues discussion

Issue 111 User intent signalling

<bijan> Jeremy, I don't read the GRDDL spec as you do, afaict

alanr: would be good to allow users to signal, flag that ontology should be interpreted as OWL1, etc.
... in the past MIME type was rejected
... Sandro put an initial email, any comments?

<IanH> Sorry, but I have to leave now.

bmotik: idea was good, we need to include in the doc a switch to use given OWL semantics
... given RDF doc, we need to see under what OWL it is interpreted (DL, Full,...)

<alanr> ACTION: alanr to show trick for how to *generate* an xslt to create a grddl transform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr

bmotik: maybe we don't need a switch per profile

JeremyCarroll: correction - MIME wasn't rejected in principle, just because there was no time

alanr: from notes - this was not needed at the time

bijan: one problem with MIME - tends not to work offline
... not robust enough
... for profiles - one reason for including is that people may want to signal that a mixed ontology is interpreted in appropriate way (say DL)

<bmotik> Agree with Bijan, but then we might use then a different switch

bijan: not necessary to disambiguate semantics, but good to flag if users want to emphasize

<Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask about what to do about interaction between imports and conflicting user intent

<bijan> importing file wins

alanr: what happens when doing imports and there are different intents in diff files

sandro: mentioned in email, but no good answer
... not sure anybody knows how to implement certain combinations = may need to ban certain combinations?

alanr: in solving this issue, we need to discuss and know what is the behavior

JeremyCarroll: maybe we should have no semantics involved here, just graph (?)
... to understand triples if we want to have just a graph, you can't use RDF semantics, as graph has no semantics

<bijan> Ok, in case of incompatible profiles, then a warning to the user SHOULD be signaled and the user offered a choice of which semantics to use

alanr: kind of like intended semantics RDF entailment

<bijan> Rdf Abstract Syntax semantics, simple interpreation, rdf, rdfs...

<bijan> er...plus d entailment variants

alanr: specific suggestions from bijan, sandro, jeremy? discuss on email and come back with revised proposal

<sandro> Alan: Bijan, Jeremy, Sandro, Boris --- you four discuss over e-mail and bring back a revised proposal.

<bmotik> Please no, I'm swamped

<bijan> I can reply to sandro's email

<JeremyCarroll> [I am leaving early, sorry. On EasyKeys it would be good to have some Full semantics]

alanr: out of time...

<sandro> Alan: okay - let's let this lie for a few weeks.

General discussion

Easy keys

<ewallace> top property discussion postponed?

<bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys

<alanr> yes

<alanr> unless we have remaining time today

<bijan> Rdf mapping: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#RDF_Mapping

uli: in the easy keys proposals we described a few things more explicit
... semantics more explicit, explained why "easy", why this would cause problems

<bmotik> Sorry, I had problems unmuting me

bijan: there is one raised, open issue - depends on what we do about key and b-nodes (?)... if variables can't do with easy keys

alanr: can you collect situations we are trying to accomplish here?

bijan: will be included on easy keys page

bmotik: spoke to uli and got explanations, so no more reservations left

alanr: we don't have achille and zhe - implementers and their position on this

bijan: the intent of easy keys was to make it easy for implementation; unless they start messing with datatypes

<ewallace> What is meant by mucking around with datatypes?

bijan: should work with anything that follows datalog rules

alanr: bijan can you add a note about the case you worry about or explain it

bijan: when you thing about dl-safe rules and datalog, you may not have some things (e.g. negation) in the right place, maybe boris, uli can tell more

<ewallace> OK Thanks, looking at that now

bijan: if you have finite datatypes you may have more work to do

<bijan> Jeremy left, didn't he?

alanr: Jeremy is also among implementers - any issues?

<alanr> zakime, who is here?

<bijan> JeremyCarroll : [I am leaving early, sorry. On EasyKeys it wo

<bijan> Zakim : -JeremyCarroll

<ewallace> Jeremy left

alanr: affirmative responses from three implementers so that we can report on this
... action needed

<msmith> 3 /other/ implementers. bmotik and I both implement reasoners

<bijan> And me, Ian, and Peter

<bijan> (at least)

alanr: getting response from all implementers on the WG

<alanr> ACTION: alan will get responses from Achille,Zhe, Jeremy as implementors - review of Easy Keys proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-140 - Will get responses from Achille,Zhe, Jeremy as implementors - review of Easy Keys proposal [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-30].

alanr: other comments on easy keys or a straw poll?
... should we go ahead and have this feature added?
... strawpoll - are we ready to add this to spec

<pfps> +1 to proceed on EasyKeys

<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: add easykeys to spec

<baojie> +1

<sandro> +1

<msmith> +1 to easy keys, they will be added to Pellet

+1

<bijan> +1 to adding to spec

<uli> +1

<MarkusK> +1

<alanr> +1

<Rinke> +1

<diegoc> +1

<Elisa> +1

<ewallace> +1 to adding EasyKeys with usual qualifications

<bijan> (and fact++)

alanr: looks good, good work from bijan and uli to have proposal in such a good shape
... back to issue l ist
... more discussion on any previous issues

Issue 71 Data ranges for literals with Language

alanr: Jeremy not here, anybody has opinions on this - should we be handling XML literals as well?

<pfps> -1 on XML literals

bijan: some variant on extending datatype language is fine, to do it somehow - may be useful

<alanr> Bijan asked my question

<alanr> also -1 to XML literals

bijan: XML literals are a bit dodgy - there is some form of inheritance... we should not support this, we don't support many other XML subtyping, because they are a hard problem

<pfps> .. and not well-formed

<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to suggest a facet for this purpose

bijan: got for a middle ground

<bijan> +1 to a facet

pfps: suggests facets for this purpose

<bmotik> +1 to adding facets

pfps: you don't to impose syntax...

<bijan> A facet would be an easy add

alanr: will you write something for spec how this may look

pfps: response sent to jeremy, may contain enough info

<bijan> How about an action to add this to the spec?

alanr: jeremy was suggesting wildcarding? is that covered?

<alanr> en-*

alanr: e.g. EN* not necessarily, EN-GB EN-US

bijan: if we want this from scratch, we can represent this using schema - string + values (facets can go into string part)
... this is not a fundamentally difficult thing, just needs to be in a neat way
... we should be able to search, cluster strings and in principle it's about having pattern facets

<msmith> pattern facets are in the spec

alanr: what is the status of this right now?

<bijan> xsd:string, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:anyURI,

<bijan> xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:NMTOKEN,

<bijan> xsd:Name, xsd:NCName,

<bijan> xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary

<bijan> length, minLength, maxLength, pattern

<bijan> Table 1

<bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Restrictions

alanr: will it be easier to use patterns? bijan, will spec ideas?

<bijan> am I offering...

<bijan> I guess

alanr: other comments?

<bijan> ACTION: Work out syntax for langed literals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - Work

Issue 112 Top property

<bijan> ACTION on bijan to work out syntax for langed literals

alanr: someone who understands "top" property to update us

uli: we were unsure how to call it, but for some reason we needed "bottom" role, there was some discussion on universality

<MarkusK> +1 to uli's summary

uli: reasoners can get away with faking this

alanr: bottom role - when debugging ontologies, one thing that came with unsatisfiable roles was that it could not have any values - could this be equivalent to a bottom role (e.g. maxCard 0)

uli: might be a way to fake implementing bottom properties
... maybe this needs syntactic sugar to name this

alanr: would this add burden to reasoners?

<ewallace> yes please have name for both topProperty and bottomProperty if supported

uli: not really, reasoners can handle this

alanr: what the name should be
... there are few possibilities, anybody?

uli: some in the email posted recently...

<ewallace> The issue lists: "universalProperty", "thingProperty", "relatesTo", "topProperty", "universal"

<alanr> toAll, toNone

<pfps> goodnight to All

<pfps> goodnight "toAll"

<alanr> relatesTo, doesNotRelateTo

uli: should mirror owl:thing

<MarkusK> +1 to uli "relates to" implies a meaning

uli: relatesTo implies meaning which it doesn't really have

<bijan> owl:TopProperty and owl:BottomProperty

<uli> +1 to bijan

<MarkusK> +1

<pfps> let's do Dr Seuss (Thing and Thing2)

<bijan> owl:BijanProperty and owl:JermeyProperty

alanr: the usual way to read properties is like a sentence - A topproperty B... sounds like relation between them

uli: topProperty should related every individual with every other individual

<bijan> owl:isRelatedVacuouslyTo

uli: "relatesTo" may be too ambiguous

<MarkusK> +1 to uli again: "topProperty" implies no *relevant* relation whatsoever

<pfps> there is the expectation that "relates to" has some domain implication

<bijan> owl:isNotRelatedAtAllNyahNyeahTo

alanr: no problems with this
... strawpoll on adding top and bottom roles to OWL 2

<ewallace> +1 to add top and bottom roles to OWL2

<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: add "top" and "bottom" by some name, to OWL 2 ?

<MarkusK> +1

<Rinke> +1 to add them

<bijan> +1

<msmith> +1 to adding top and bottom roles

<alanr> +1

+1

<uli> +1

<sandro> +0 no clueif it's really useful

<pfps> +top

alanr: we have good sentiment that this is worth adding, let's discuss the actual names on email
... one last thing

<pfps> separate

alanr: where we are going on whether there should be 1 or 2 OWL semantics documents...
... should there be one or separate

<uli> hurray!

alanr: adjourned

<ewallace> 5 minutes early!

<uli> bye!

<Elisa> bye

<MarkusK> bye

<Rinke> thanks, bye

<diegoc> bye

<alanr> sandro, you got the notes?

<alanr> minutes?

how to generate them

>

?

<alanr> sandro usuall handles

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/ACCEPTED/RESOLVED/
Found ScribeNick: MartinD
Inferring Scribes: MartinD
Default Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider
Present: Peter_Patel-Schneider

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!


WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 23 Apr 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/23-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: alan alanr ianh work

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.