16:59:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:59:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc
16:59:55 <Zakim> bmotik, you need to end that query with '?'
17:00:01 <bmotik> Zakim, who is here?
17:00:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted)
17:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:00:06 <IanH> Thanks!
17:00:16 <uli> uli has joined #owl
17:00:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:00:36 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:00:39 <Zakim> +Ivan
17:00:40 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace
17:00:44 <msmith> msmith has joined #owl
17:00:47 <Zakim> +??P4
17:00:54 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:00:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, ??P4
17:00:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:01:10 <Zakim> +??P5
17:01:13 <uli> zakim, ??P5 is me
17:01:13 <Zakim> +uli; got it
17:01:20 <uli> zakim, mute me
17:01:20 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
17:01:24 <Zakim> +msmith
17:01:36 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
17:01:36 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/06/11-owl-irc#T17-01-36
17:01:41 <IanH> Peter, are you there and ready to scribe?
17:01:45 <bcuencagrau> bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:01:46 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:01:47 <calvanese> calvanese has joined #owl
17:01:55 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:01:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro
17:01:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:02:04 <ewallace> sandro: what is "pointer"
17:02:29 <sandro> ewallace, it's the URL for where things are being logged at this point.
17:02:38 <ewallace> cool
17:02:43 <sandro> RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:07 <MarkusK> ok,. I can scribe
17:03:35 <MarkusK> ok, fine
17:03:37 <Zakim> +??P13
17:03:43 <MarkusK> scribenick MarkusK
17:03:45 <ivan> scribenick: MarkusK 
17:03:47 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:03:47 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
17:04:00 <ivan> scribe: Markus
17:04:05 <Zakim> +calvanese
17:04:14 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:04:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese
17:04:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:04:25 <calvanese> zakim, mute me
17:04:25 <Zakim> calvanese should now be muted
17:04:29 <ewallace> Who has the machine that goes "ping"?
17:04:34 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg
17:04:48 <MarkusK> no agenda amendments
17:04:54 <Zakim> +[IBM]
17:05:08 <MarkusK> Previous minutes
17:05:09 <pfps> oops, i'm here now
17:05:15 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:05:20 <Achille> Achille has joined #owl
17:05:30 <Achille> Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
17:06:02 <uli> they aren't pretty
17:06:05 <pfps> the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday
17:06:07 <MarkusK> Ian: can someone apprve previous minutes
17:06:11 <Zhe> Zhe has joined #owl
17:06:22 <msmith> msmith has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.06.11/Agenda
17:06:24 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #owl
17:06:33 <MarkusK> Ian: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared
17:06:46 <MarkusK> Sandro: the old partial minutes have confused people
17:06:54 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2008-06-04
17:07:02 <bcuencagrau> zakim, mute me
17:07:02 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:07:05 <MarkusK> (link to unformatted minutes)
17:07:31 <MarkusK> Sandro: the scribe should edit the IRC log and it should be reformatted later on request
17:07:36 <pfps> no fixes were performed on the minutes at all - 
17:07:59 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aaaa
17:08:01 <pfps> what is "the right place"?
17:08:03 <MarkusK> Ian: previous minutes cannot be accepted yet since not many people saw the final version
17:08:13 <Zhe> Zakim, +1.603.438.aaaa is me
17:08:13 <Zakim> +Zhe; got it
17:08:18 <IanH> q?
17:08:55 <MarkusK> Ian: registration for F2F3 still should be completed
17:09:06 <MarkusK> Topic: Action item review
17:09:07 <ewallace> topic: Pending Review Actions
17:09:14 <ewallace> sorry
17:09:25 <MarkusK> you're welcome to assist :-)
17:09:50 <IanH> q?
17:09:58 <MarkusK> Achille: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week
17:10:11 <JeffPan> JeffPan has joined #owl
17:10:13 <MarkusK> ... found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated
17:10:21 <pfps> Ian - today is 11 June, *not* 4 June!
17:10:28 <pfps> q+
17:10:29 <MarkusK> ... my only point was in the syntax document
17:10:33 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg
17:10:37 <IanH> q?
17:11:34 <MarkusK> Ian: the above refered to Action 148, which was still open, though not menitioned in the agenda
17:11:43 <Zakim> +jar
17:11:48 <IanH> q?
17:11:52 <MarkusK> s/menitioned/mentioned/
17:11:59 <ivan> ack pfps 
17:12:04 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 148 completed
17:12:23 <MarkusK> ... Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later
17:12:24 <Zakim> +??P8
17:12:31 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:12:39 <Zakim> +qhreul
17:12:41 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 42 (Bijan)
17:12:44 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
17:12:50 <JeffPan> zakim, qhreul is me
17:12:50 <Zakim> +JeffPan; got it
17:13:11 <MarkusK> Bijan: Action is ongoing, I hope to have it done by next week
17:13:36 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 147 (Michael)
17:13:45 <MarkusK> ... a detailed review was provided
17:14:00 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:14:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar,
17:14:03 <Zakim> ... ??P8, JeffPan
17:14:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:14:05 <MarkusK> ... Michael is not on the call to comment
17:14:20 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:14:20 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:14:44 <IanH> q?
17:14:53 <MarkusK> Boris: I did look at Michael's review, though without checking all details
17:14:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:14:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, jar, ??P8,
17:14:56 <Zakim> ... JeffPan
17:14:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro, trackbot
17:15:29 <MarkusK> ... the points appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first
17:15:45 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
17:15:45 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
17:15:47 <MarkusK> ... I wil come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion
17:15:53 <MarkusK> s/wil/will/
17:16:14 <alanr> +1
17:16:19 <MarkusK> Ian: then let us close Action 147 for the moment
17:16:25 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
17:16:27 <alanr> zakim, jar is alanr
17:16:27 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
17:16:41 <bijan> I htink that's me
17:16:43 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
17:16:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,
17:16:47 <Zakim> ... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan
17:16:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,
17:16:50 <Zakim> ... trackbot
17:16:52 <bijan> zakim, ??P8 is me
17:16:52 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
17:16:57 <MarkusK> Ian: ??P8 and jar are unidentified participants who must be identified
17:16:57 <m_schnei> sorry, today only IRC
17:17:10 <bijan> zakim, who is here?
17:17:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik (muted), Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe,
17:17:13 <Zakim> ... alanr, bijan, JeffPan
17:17:13 <MarkusK> Bijan: I fixed it
17:17:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see m_schnei, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, calvanese, bcuencagrau, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, MarkusK, ivan, ewallace, IanH, pfps, Zakim, bmotik, sandro,
17:17:16 <Zakim> ... trackbot
17:17:22 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:17:22 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:17:34 <MarkusK> Ian: Action 150 (Jie Bao)
17:17:43 <IanH> q?
17:17:48 <MarkusK> ... Jie Bao is not here to comment
17:17:56 <MarkusK> ... so Action remains open until next week
17:18:11 <m_schnei> action 147 is finished
17:18:11 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 147
17:18:20 <MarkusK> Topic: Issues
17:18:34 <m_schnei> i have finished action 147
17:18:38 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:18:38 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
17:18:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 104 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics
17:19:04 <m_schnei> i have just sent a mail regarding 104
17:19:05 <IanH> q?
17:19:14 <MarkusK> Boris: yes, we can change the mapping to address that issue
17:19:22 <clu> clu has joined #owl
17:20:00 <MarkusK> Ian: so we can propose to resolve Issue 104
17:20:19 <ewallace> 104 or 124?
17:20:21 <IanH> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de
17:20:28 <bmotik> +1
17:20:32 <IanH> +1
17:20:36 <Zhe> +1
17:20:37 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:20:39 <MarkusK> s/104/124/
17:20:40 <pfps> +1 
17:20:42 <sandro> 0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue)
17:20:46 <ivan> +1
17:20:47 <JeffPan> 0
17:20:49 <uli> +1
17:20:50 <msmith> +1
17:20:52 <MarkusK> +1
17:20:55 <ewallace> +1
17:20:56 <bijan> +1
17:21:03 <Zakim> +??P1
17:21:09 <clu> zakim, ??p1 is me
17:21:09 <Zakim> +clu; got it
17:21:12 <IanH> RESOLVED: esolve Issue 124 as per http://www.w3.org/mid/0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096B434@judith.fzi.de
17:21:13 <clu> zakim, mute me
17:21:13 <Zakim> clu should now be muted
17:21:17 <clu> Sorry for being late.
17:21:20 <ivan> s/esolve/resolve/
17:21:46 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 104 was discussed in many emails
17:21:54 <IanH> q?
17:21:59 <MarkusK> ... many people raised concerns
17:22:06 <bmotik> q+
17:22:10 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
17:22:10 <Zakim> bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:22:45 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:22:45 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:23:02 <MarkusK> Boris: one issue is that reification and collections are the only ones that make sense to take out of the reserved vocabulary
17:23:10 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:23:10 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:23:46 <MarkusK> ... I send a proposal for having a shadow-vocabulary for OWL, but this met little approval
17:23:52 <alanr> the proposal was to define our own terminology for the serialization
17:23:58 <alanr> q+
17:24:02 <alanr> ack bmotik
17:24:16 <MarkusK> ... the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning
17:24:21 <IanH> q?
17:24:44 <alanr> we need not assign a type in the language - leave it to the modeler
17:24:45 <MarkusK> ... hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type
17:24:58 <alanr> s/asign/assign/
17:25:14 <MarkusK> ... rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I propose to not allow it in OWL DL vocabulary
17:25:15 <bijan> Or a shadow vocabualry
17:25:19 <IanH> q?
17:25:43 <MarkusK> AlanR: there were various proposals to address this
17:26:02 <bijan> bijan has joined #owl
17:26:17 <MarkusK> ... one was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts
17:26:20 <m_schnei> in my mail I argue for not treat lists at all in OWL DL, so people may declare it to be either a data or a object property, if they wish
17:26:32 <bmotik> q+
17:26:33 <MarkusK> ... the other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers
17:26:37 <ivan> ack alanr 
17:26:42 <IanH> q?
17:26:50 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:26:52 <m_schnei> rdf:first would then be just an URI like any other
17:26:56 <MarkusK> ... one would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur
17:27:01 <alanr> why?
17:27:12 <msmith> q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:27:34 <IanH> q?
17:27:37 <alanr> "messy" is subjective
17:27:41 <MarkusK> Boris: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice
17:27:51 <ivan> q+
17:27:53 <alanr> then owl full
17:27:59 <m_schnei> a shadow vocabulary for lists can be used /always/ by users - no need to say anything about it
17:28:04 <MarkusK> ... ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it
17:28:14 <bijan> Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))
17:28:15 <alanr> q+
17:28:20 <ivan> ack msmith 
17:28:20 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:28:37 <alanr> shadow was for internal use
17:28:38 <bijan> Interop
17:28:47 <IanH> q?
17:28:52 <MarkusK> MSmith: I do not agree with Boris: I would allow users to define types for rd:type
17:29:01 <alanr> yes
17:29:02 <MarkusK> ... I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though
17:29:05 <alanr> yes
17:29:07 <bmotik> q+
17:29:15 <alanr> reverse mapping
17:29:18 <alanr> fixes this
17:29:31 <alanr> not
17:29:35 <ivan> ack ivan 
17:29:36 <msmith> The first scribing above is the opposite of what I intended to say.  I agree with Boris exactly.
17:29:50 <alanr> billions and billions
17:29:53 <msmith> yes
17:29:54 <alanr> served
17:29:56 <MarkusK> Oh, sorry!
17:30:11 <MarkusK> Please fix this, I misheard you
17:30:15 <bmotik> By the way, I have just fixed the mapping document regarding owl:datatypeComplementOf.
17:30:19 <MarkusK> Ivan: Existing OWL ontologies may already use RDF constructs, so it is not clear that we even have an option for disallowing that now in OWL 2
17:30:22 <bijan> q+
17:30:24 <IanH> q?
17:30:25 <pfps> q+
17:30:31 <ivan> ack alanr 
17:30:35 <msmith> thank you, I will verify the correct version is in the minutes
17:30:52 <MarkusK> AlanR: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users
17:31:06 <IanH> q?
17:31:21 <MarkusK> ... restricting uses of rdf:first in a certain way may still be better than not allowing it at all
17:32:17 <msmith> I am now confused about the intended use of the "shadow vocabulary"
17:32:18 <IanH> q?
17:32:32 <ivan> msmith: you are not the only one:-)
17:32:58 <ivan> ack bmotik 
17:33:05 <alanr> idea is that we use owl:first, owl:next owl:nil in our serialization
17:33:29 <MarkusK> Boris: switching from RDF lists to something else in serialisation seems to be no good idea
17:33:30 <ivan> +1 to boris
17:33:34 <IanH> q?
17:33:41 <MarkusK> ... many ontologies are also already using RDF lists
17:33:54 <alanr> I'd like the backwards compatibility case spelled out clearly, please
17:34:01 <MarkusK> ... I think it is not a major backward compatibility issue
17:34:07 <bijan> I think mike was looking for the utility of the shadow vocabulary
17:34:15 <bijan> I wonder that so many people can't understand mike :)
17:34:59 <IanH> q?
17:35:25 <MarkusK> Boris: I proposed the shadow vocabulary, so that users are freed of some burdon reinventing vocabulary for standard tasks
17:35:29 <alanr> can't introduce it to the rdfs users - they are the ones that we want to bring in to the fold
17:35:38 <ivan> +1 again to Boris
17:35:41 <MarkusK> ... but the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here
17:35:42 <IanH> q?
17:35:59 <MarkusK> ... we cannot really reason about lists logically
17:36:09 <alanr> q+ to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:36:13 <IanH> q?
17:36:23 <alanr> no no
17:36:29 <alanr> we are trying to let more rdf be owl
17:36:34 <MarkusK> ... the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct
17:36:41 <alanr> they can all be defined as annotation properties if need be
17:36:41 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:36:41 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:36:43 <IanH> q?
17:36:47 <ivan> ack bijan 
17:37:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list vocabulary
17:37:29 <alanr> this is clearly getting in to the modeling business - we think it is bad modeling, so we will forbid it?
17:37:43 <MarkusK> ... I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies
17:37:47 <IanH> q?
17:38:10 <m_schnei> do i understand this right? rdf:first as an annotation property? and if a reasoner throws away all annotations? then there are a lot of unconnected nodes around. :)
17:38:11 <MarkusK> ... in our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists
17:38:28 <bmotik> Alan, we will prohibit the usage of rdf:List for technical reasons that are not negligible. People can model lists using their own vocabulary if they want.
17:38:41 <MarkusK> ... it is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary
17:38:44 <IanH> q?
17:38:47 <alanr> I don't see the technical reasons as being very much
17:38:51 <ivan> ack pfps 
17:38:57 <alanr> just not convinced
17:39:06 <bijan> "seeing" is subjective :)
17:39:15 <sandro> what about promoting a standard list vocabulary?
17:39:37 <MarkusK> Pfps: Where exactly are RDF lists used in OWL ontologies
17:39:41 <sandro> (owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... )
17:39:43 <alanr> if it can be done unambiguously then great!
17:39:47 <MarkusK> Ivan: mostly in the serialisation of OWL
17:39:48 <bijan> sandro, without proper list semantics?
17:39:55 <sandro> no, with.
17:40:00 <bmotik> What is the proper list semantics?
17:40:02 <IanH> q?
17:40:06 <bijan> Now we're out of first order logic at least
17:40:07 <bmotik> Lists cannot be modeled semantically!
17:40:08 <m_schnei> there are no rdf lists customly used in OWL DL, since this is not allowed :)
17:40:18 <bmotik> Yes, in FOL, T meant.
17:40:19 <bijan> Since normally lists are well founded and defined with transitive closure
17:40:23 <IanH> q?
17:40:27 <alanr> any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2
17:40:28 <bmotik> s/T meant/I meant
17:40:45 <alanr> every ontology that is owl2 is serialized with mention of owl2:first
17:40:51 <msmith> the times I have seen lists in OWL, the type of items is also restricted, which would require specializing any "standard" shadow vocabulary
17:40:54 <ivan> :-)
17:41:13 <bmotik> q+
17:41:19 <ivan> ack alanr 
17:41:19 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:41:22 <IanH> q?
17:41:51 <MarkusK> Alanr: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary
17:42:21 <MarkusK> ... a shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2
17:42:32 <bijan> http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/generic/ObjectList.owl
17:42:40 <pfps> if you don't use owl2 vocabulary but do use lists in an object sense, are you in owl1 then?
17:42:56 <IanH> q?
17:43:08 <sandro> q+ to support Alan
17:43:10 <bijan> q+
17:43:15 <alanr> michael is not here, he supports
17:43:18 <alanr> markus?
17:43:26 <MarkusK> ... OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic shortness in Turtle and SPARQL
17:43:35 <pfps> q+
17:43:36 <IanH> q?
17:44:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:44:14 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
17:44:17 <MarkusK> AlanR: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call
17:44:18 <IanH> q?
17:44:34 <MarkusK> ... I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it
17:44:53 <MarkusK> I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing
17:45:05 <alanr> sorry - my mistake
17:45:11 <bijan> zakim, mute me
17:45:11 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
17:45:59 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/
17:46:05 <ewallace> +1 to Sandro's suggestion
17:46:10 <alanr> exactly
17:46:22 <MarkusK> Sandro: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here?
17:46:37 <msmith> alanr, what part of that ontology?
17:46:37 <IanH> Michael: q?
17:46:42 <IanH> q?
17:46:43 <pfps> q?
17:46:43 <MarkusK> ... at least to measure general motivation in the group
17:46:50 <alanr> hunting - discussion was in email
17:46:54 <pfps> q-
17:46:58 <MarkusK> Ian: still some speakers on the queue first
17:47:15 <alanr> http://bibliontology.com/#term_contributorList
17:47:18 <IanH> q?
17:47:39 <MarkusK> Boris: the technical questions seem to be rather severe
17:47:49 <MarkusK> ... changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change
17:47:49 <sandro> Sandro: proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.
17:48:26 <IanH> q?
17:48:33 <sandro> q-
17:48:34 <ivan> ack bmotik 
17:48:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:48:38 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
17:48:42 <ivan> ack bijan 
17:48:46 <MarkusK> ... using things like rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs like nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and OWL Full
17:49:08 <alanr> Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?
17:49:18 <m_schnei> in owl full, there isn't any restriction on the use of rdf:first, anyway
17:49:35 <bijan> See the code :)
17:49:39 <MarkusK> Bijan: I see a user need for expressing lists, but we can leave it to implementors and future work to properly solve that
17:50:02 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.
17:50:11 <alanr> yes, will check code, but if you could give a hint, that would be greatly appreciated ;-)
17:50:13 <sandro> +1
17:50:15 <alanr> +1
17:50:16 <bijan> That's the straw poll?
17:50:22 <msmith> +1 it would be nice.  it doesn't seem feasible
17:50:24 <MarkusK> +1
17:50:25 <Achille> +1
17:50:26 <JeffPan> 0-
17:50:28 <pfps> +1, in the same sense that it would be nice to have rules, self-knowledge, etc., etc.
17:50:31 <m_schnei> +1 (would be nice, but no shaddow vocab)
17:50:35 <ewallace> +0
17:50:35 <Zhe> +1 would be nice
17:50:37 <ivan> +1 would be nice...
17:50:37 <uli> +1 but not too optimistic
17:50:41 <bmotik> +1 it would be nice, but I strongly doubt we can solve this
17:50:43 <alanr> +1 to transmutation
17:50:46 <bcuencagrau> 0
17:50:49 <bijan> +0 but I wouldn't mind free puppies either
17:50:49 <clu> 0
17:51:08 <pfps> who is going to bell this cat?
17:51:13 <bijan> Er... if someone wants to , they should do so
17:51:14 <alanr> Can we get a list of issues to start?
17:51:15 <MarkusK> Sandro: maybe a follow-up straw poll on the amount of resources to invest in the issue would be useful
17:51:30 <bijan> alanr, re: code, I don't know off hand
17:51:43 <m_schnei> for me, the question is, whether we can just say /nothing/ about RDF Lists, and it would work
17:51:44 <alanr> I will volunteer if Michael (S) will
17:52:08 <msmith> S == Schneider
17:52:11 <MarkusK> Ian: are there volunteers for trying to solve the problem?
17:52:13 <alanr> (sm)
17:52:22 <m_schnei> I don't know what to volunteer for, but if it sounds good, I will do it ;-)
17:52:22 <msmith> I can talk to you about Pellet
17:52:36 <m_schnei> please say in irc, alan!
17:52:56 <alanr> yes
17:52:56 <MarkusK> Ian: AlanR and MSchneider to pursue the issue
17:53:15 <MarkusK> Alanr: I will start by compiling a list of concerns that were raised so far
17:53:47 <alanr> action: Alan to work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary 
17:53:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Work with M_schnei to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary  [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-06-18].
17:53:57 <bijan> nary!
17:54:14 <IanH> q?
17:54:16 <m_schnei> ok, people, I need to stop for about 15 minutes. my battery is down. sorry!
17:54:18 <MarkusK> Ian: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys
17:54:23 <m_schnei> bye for now!
17:54:24 <IanH> q?
17:54:57 <MarkusK> ... especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropraite disclaimer
17:55:03 <IanH> q?
17:55:08 <bijan> q+
17:55:14 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
17:55:14 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
17:55:15 <MarkusK> Ian: Any comments?
17:55:25 <IanH> q?
17:55:29 <IanH> ack bijan
17:56:12 <MarkusK> Bijan: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information.
17:56:16 <IanH> q?
17:56:30 <bmotik> q+
17:56:44 <MarkusK> ... We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback.
17:57:05 <bijan> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Easy_Keys#Spec_Proposal
17:57:09 <sandro> +1 Bijan add them now, no need for "At Risk"
17:57:18 <IanH> q?
17:57:24 <IanH> ack bmotik
17:57:25 <MarkusK> Bijan: "At risk" comments are not problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general
17:57:46 <bijan> q+ to mention spec work
17:57:48 <MarkusK> Boris: I do not like to add feartures to the spec now that we may remove later on
17:57:50 <IanH> q?
17:58:06 <IanH> ack bijan
17:58:06 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to mention spec work
17:58:15 <MarkusK> ... I would prefer to first do some investigations, and then start modifying the spec
17:58:43 <MarkusK> Bijan: For EasyKeys, extending the spec should not be hard, since the existing text is almost ready for use in the spec
17:59:08 <MarkusK> ... I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still further more feedback.
17:59:13 <IanH> q?
17:59:23 <MarkusK> Ian: do you consider the features to be modular?
17:59:41 <MarkusK> Bijan: EasyKeys and Top/Bottom properties both seem to be modular.
17:59:48 <MarkusK> Boris: I agree.
17:59:48 <bijan> yep
17:59:53 <MarkusK> Ian: Straw poll
18:00:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:00:08 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:00:36 <IanH> STRAWPOLL: easy keys and top and bottom roles should be added to spec with comment that they could be removed later if implementation experience is negative
18:00:37 <bmotik> My main comment is that it is not only the structural spec that changes: most of the documents will need to change.
18:00:45 <bmotik> But I can live with  that
18:00:50 <ivan> +1
18:00:57 <sandro> +1
18:00:58 <Achille> +1 
18:00:59 <uli> +1
18:00:59 <bijan> Boris, yes, I'm working on bits for rdf mapping and sematncis as well
18:01:00 <Zhe> +1
18:01:00 <MarkusK> +1
18:01:00 <clu> +1
18:01:00 <bijan> +1
18:01:01 <ewallace> +1
18:01:05 <msmith> +1
18:01:05 <alanr> +1
18:01:06 <bmotik> -0
18:01:09 <JeffPan> 0-
18:01:10 <bcuencagrau> 0
18:01:18 <pfps> +0
18:01:28 <alanr> is -0 = 0- ?
18:01:38 <bmotik> Frankly, we don't need a comment.
18:01:39 <alanr> which can also be read as "is someone looking"
18:01:44 <MarkusK> Ian: so it seems that it is OK for the group to add both with some comment
18:01:48 <bmotik> q+
18:01:55 <IanH> q?
18:02:07 <bijan> A joint action?
18:02:08 <MarkusK> Boris: Is that a resolution? Shall we have an action?
18:02:12 <bijan> We'd need a resolution
18:02:17 <MarkusK> Ian: I think so.
18:02:19 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:02:19 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:02:25 <alanr> absolutely
18:02:40 <alanr> q?
18:02:51 <MarkusK> Bijan: we first need a resolution.
18:03:34 <MarkusK> AlanR: we can also consider that again before the next publication.
18:03:34 <IanH> RESOLVED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round
18:03:42 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec
18:03:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Add easy keys and Top and Bottom role to the spec [on Boris Motik - due 2008-06-18].
18:03:49 <bijan> +1
18:03:54 <alanr> +1
18:03:55 <bmotik> +1
18:03:58 <MarkusK> +1
18:04:00 <Zhe> +1
18:04:02 <bcuencagrau> +1
18:04:05 <IanH> +1
18:04:06 <JeffPan> +1
18:04:09 <uli> +1
18:04:13 <ivan> +1
18:04:21 <msmith> +!
18:04:24 <sandro> +1
18:04:28 <MarkusK> s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/
18:04:29 <msmith> +1
18:04:33 <pfps> +0
18:04:34 <ewallace> +1 
18:04:36 <clu> +1
18:04:42 <IanH> RESOLVED: add easy keys and top and bottom roles to the spec; review when we get to next publication round
18:05:08 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 109 (XML namespace)
18:05:24 <MarkusK> .. are there new technical arguments on that?
18:05:29 <IanH> q?
18:05:33 <uli> pfff
18:05:36 <bmotik> -q
18:05:37 <IanH> ack boris
18:05:41 <MarkusK> ... or shall we just vote?
18:05:45 <bijan> I do!
18:05:46 <bijan> I do!
18:05:50 <ivan> I do!
18:05:56 <ivan> but I wrote it down
18:05:57 <bijan> I do more!
18:06:03 <pfps> I do! I do! (but not as much)
18:06:12 <uli> I care, but I do we have new arguments
18:06:26 <MarkusK> AlanR: Ivan and Bijan might be able to reach an agreement.
18:06:49 <MarkusK> Ivan: Bijan and I tried to compile all pros and cons to support the decision
18:07:16 <IanH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0031.html
18:07:42 <ivan> i did
18:07:44 <uli> I did
18:07:44 <MarkusK> Ian: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email
18:07:45 <pfps> me
18:07:45 <bijan> I did
18:07:49 <alanr> me
18:07:59 <sandro> I didn't.  :-(
18:08:00 <bijan> Michael did
18:08:01 <Achille> I did not
18:08:03 <ewallace> I didn't
18:08:06 <Zhe> am reading it now
18:08:07 <bcuencagrau> I didn't
18:08:16 <JeffPan>  I just did but didn't finish
18:08:18 <MarkusK> Ian: Poll on who read the email and who did not.
18:08:29 <alanr> action to all who haven't read it?
18:08:29 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
18:08:36 <m_schnei> m_schnei has joined #owl
18:09:12 <MarkusK> Ian: I will postpone that to next week, and every participant next week should be prepared to vote on that issue, i.e. should have read the email.
18:09:13 <alanr> is BIJAN one of the options?
18:09:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:09:23 <bijan> Ivan did a good job with the email
18:09:24 <alanr> bijan:someValuesFrom
18:09:41 <m_schnei> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:09:41 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
18:09:45 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:09:45 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:09:52 <MarkusK> Ian: so the issue will be voted on next week
18:10:10 <IanH> q?
18:10:32 <IanH> q?
18:10:39 <IanH> q?
18:10:45 <bmotik> +1 to resolve these issues
18:10:48 <MarkusK> Ian: Issues 21 and 24
18:11:03 <MarkusK> ... are we ready to try to resolve those?
18:11:16 <pfps> q+
18:11:20 <IanH> q?
18:11:40 <MarkusK> AlanR: I think we should announce it on the agenda for next week
18:12:01 <alanr> 24 reject, no inconsistencies
18:12:17 <MarkusK> Pfps: when putting the issues on the agenda, the concrete proposals should be made explicit as well, especially for Issue 24
18:12:41 <MarkusK> Ian: Alan and I will prepare a wording for both proposals
18:12:51 <MarkusK> Ian: Issue 111
18:12:54 <alanr> q+
18:12:55 <bijan> q+
18:13:02 <MarkusK> ... User intent signaling
18:13:05 <pfps> q-
18:13:06 <IanH> q?
18:13:11 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanr,
18:13:14 <Zakim> ... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)
18:13:15 <ivan> ack alanr 
18:13:20 <IanH> q?
18:13:47 <bmotik> +q
18:13:53 <IanH> q?
18:13:59 <MarkusK> AlanR: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly
18:14:03 <sandro> PRESENT: IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)
18:14:11 <IanH> q?
18:14:27 <MarkusK> ... the idea of "intents" is not so clear in some cases
18:14:35 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:14:35 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan
18:14:41 <IanH> q?
18:14:46 <IanH> ack bijan
18:14:58 <MarkusK> ... the main use case I see is really when one requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.
18:15:16 <MarkusK> Bijan: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now
18:15:35 <alanr> Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too?
18:15:50 <sandro> absolutely
18:15:59 <MarkusK> ... I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear
18:16:21 <MarkusK> ... having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise
18:16:49 <sandro> Bijan: you can always do the work-around of including an OWL-full tautology in your DL, if you want to tell people it's OWL-Full.
18:17:09 <alanr> one question is whether I must use wsdl for message
18:17:22 <IanH> q?
18:17:30 <sandro> q+
18:17:31 <MarkusK> Bijan: overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected
18:17:47 <bijan> zakim, mute me
18:17:47 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
18:17:48 <MarkusK> ... thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences
18:18:19 <bijan> alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english
18:18:32 <IanH> q?
18:18:36 <IanH> ack bmotik
18:18:40 <m_schnei> conventions might arise outside the WG, where people use an rdfs:comment on the ontology header which tells the profile
18:18:41 <IanH> ack sandro
18:18:43 <bijan> Insane? Moi?
18:18:53 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
18:18:53 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
18:19:22 <IanH> q?
18:19:22 <alanr> what about dl versus r?
18:19:22 <uli> q+
18:19:46 <IanH> q?
18:19:47 <bmotik> Not at the DL side
18:19:56 <MarkusK> Sandro: there are non-entailments for OWL-R that are entailed by other OWL versions
18:20:12 <bmotik> Not at the OWL R DL side: if you're in OWL R DL, then the entailements coincide with OWL 2 DL
18:20:16 <IanH> q?
18:20:26 <m_schnei> OWL R Full is both a /syntactic/ AND a /semantic/ subset of Full
18:20:26 <IanH> q?
18:20:36 <m_schnei> q+
18:20:37 <MarkusK> Bijan: I thought that OWL-R would be a syntactic fragment that entails all consequences that the larger fragments would entail
18:20:48 <alanr> we discussed this in detail at the last f2f
18:21:00 <alanr> so patient...
18:21:01 <bijan> Then I didn't understand it in detail at the last f2f
18:21:02 <MarkusK> ... if it is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full
18:21:06 <bmotik> I can
18:21:06 <bijan> Are there examples?
18:21:31 <m_schnei> q+ on explaining the difference
18:21:41 <pfps> sounds good to me
18:22:00 <IanH> q?
18:22:07 <m_schnei> q+ on explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
18:22:10 <MarkusK> Ian: In OWL-R Full one can state arbitrary DL statements, on account of being "Full", but it would not entail the DL consequences
18:22:11 <m_schnei> q+  explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
18:22:12 <uli> zakim, unmute me
18:22:13 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
18:22:14 <IanH> q?
18:22:30 <MarkusK> Bijan: I would consider OWL-R Full to be broken then
18:22:31 <IanH> q?
18:22:37 <IanH> ack uli
18:22:47 <MarkusK> Uli: there seems to be a misunderstanding
18:23:11 <MarkusK> ... Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this
18:23:35 <alanr> what about owl-r full versus owl-full
18:23:39 <IanH> q?
18:23:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
18:23:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:23:43 <MarkusK> ... Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if this interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial
18:23:45 <uli> zakim, mute me
18:23:45 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
18:23:50 <IanH> q?
18:23:56 <IanH> ack m_schnei
18:24:19 <MarkusK> Michael: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full
18:24:38 <pfps> q+ to ask what syntactic features are missing in OWL-R Full
18:24:46 <IanH> q?
18:24:53 <m_schnei> q-
18:24:56 <IanH> q?
18:25:04 <MarkusK> ... I can give an example, but it is probably better to give it by email
18:25:17 <MarkusK> Pfps: What is not in OWL-R Full
18:25:21 <bijan> Obviously we don't have a claer understanding!
18:25:24 <MarkusK> Michael: Nominals are not in?
18:25:45 <MarkusK> Ian: Syntactically nominals are allowed
18:25:50 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
18:25:50 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
18:25:52 <bcuencagrau> The OWL-R Full specification is telling you what you are allowed to entail
18:26:03 <MarkusK> Michael: Indeed
18:26:11 <MarkusK> Any other business?
18:26:12 <pfps> OWL R Full allows *all* RDF graphs, but does not provide any "extra" semantics for several constructs that are in OWL (even in OWL DL).
18:26:33 <bijan> Eek!
18:26:34 <m_schnei> yes, I was a bit confused at the moment :)
18:26:35 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
18:26:38 <JeffPan> bye
18:26:39 <bijan> That wasn't my undersatnding
18:26:40 <Zakim> -bmotik
18:26:41 <msmith> bye, thanks all
18:26:41 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
18:26:41 <MarkusK> Adjourn
18:26:42 <Zakim> -Achille
18:26:43 <Zakim> -msmith
18:26:43 <Zhe> second peter
18:26:43 <Zakim> -JeffPan
18:26:45 <clu> bye
18:26:45 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:26:46 <Zakim> -IanH
18:26:46 <Zhe> bye
18:26:48 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:26:49 <Zakim> -uli
18:26:51 <Zakim> -calvanese
18:26:53 <Zakim> -Zhe
18:26:55 <bijan> So the realtionship between owl dl and owl full is very much unlike that between owl-r dl and owl-r full!
18:27:00 <MarkusK> So what exactly is the process for publishing minutes now?
18:27:01 <IanH> Sandro, do we need to do anything for the minutes now.
18:27:04 <Zakim> -m_schnei
18:27:05 <ivan> zakim, drop me
18:27:05 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
18:27:06 <Zakim> -Ivan
18:27:09 <calvanese> calvanese has left #owl
18:27:10 <IanH> or does it all happen by magic?
18:27:10 <sandro> IanH, I'll talk to MarkusK about it.
18:27:12 <alanr> alanr has left #owl
18:27:14 <Zakim> -clu
18:27:15 <msmith> msmith has left #owl
18:27:22 <IanH> OK -- thanks.
18:27:22 <sandro> MarkusK, hold on a minute....
18:27:25 <MarkusK> ok
18:27:45 <Zakim> -alanr
18:27:50 <Zakim> -bijan
18:30:16 <Zakim> -MarkusK
18:30:17 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:30:19 <Zakim> Attendees were IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli, msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese, Alan_Ruttenberg, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Achille, Zhe, JeffPan, alanr, bijan,
18:30:21 <Zakim> ... clu, m_schnei
18:32:43 <sandro> MarkusK, can I just e-mail you in a bit, when it's ready?    
18:32:54 <MarkusK> sure
18:33:22 <MarkusK> bye
19:54:06 <clu> clu has joined #owl
20:35:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #owl
20:42:15 <clu> clu has joined #owl