IRC log of owl on 2008-06-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
17:00:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:00:12 [pfps]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
17:00:12 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 60 minutes ago
17:00:23 [pfps]
RRSagent, make records public
17:00:32 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:36 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:00:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:00:47 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:00:55 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:00:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I don't know what conference this is
17:01:18 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
17:01:21 [pfps]
zakim, this will be owlwg
17:01:21 [Zakim]
ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 61 minutes ago
17:01:28 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:28 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
17:01:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:01:54 [uli]
aha, this explains things
17:02:03 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:02:03 [Zakim]
sorry, uli, I don't know what conference this is
17:02:09 [bmotik]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:09 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, bmotik
17:02:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:02:11 [sandro]
zakim, this will be owl
17:02:11 [Zakim]
ok, sandro, I see SW_OWL()12:00PM already started
17:02:14 [msmith]
ScribeNick: msmith
17:02:15 [Zakim]
17:02:20 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:25 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:02:29 [bmotik]
>Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:34 [bmotik]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:39 [Zakim]
17:02:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21
17:02:49 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:02:52 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:02:52 [RRSAgent]
17:02:53 [Ratnesh]
zakim, ??P21 is Ratnesh
17:02:55 [Zakim]
17:03:00 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:01 [Zhe]
zakim, +1.603.897.aaaa is me
17:03:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.603.897.aaaa, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, ??P8, +0186527aacc, ??P21, Ivan
17:03:12 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:13 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:03:14 [sandro]
it's always slow at the top of the hour.
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:25 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
17:03:27 [Zakim]
17:03:31 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:03:33 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:03:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:39 [Zhe]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:03:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, +1.202.408.aabb, ??P5, +0186527aacc, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro
17:03:49 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:03:57 [Zakim]
17:03:58 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:04:02 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim ??P8 is me
17:04:03 [Zakim]
I already had ??P8 as ??P8, bcuencagrau
17:04:05 [Zakim]
17:04:11 [Zakim]
sorry, Zhe, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
17:04:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:04:13 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:24 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:04:29 [Zakim]
17:04:30 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:34 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:36 [Zakim]
sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aadd
17:04:42 [Zakim]
17:04:47 [baojie]
zakim, aadd is me
17:04:47 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P4
17:04:52 [Zakim]
sorry, bcuencagrau, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:04:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:04:59 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:04:59 [IanH]
zakim, aacc is me
17:05:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P4', bmotik
17:05:06 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:05:08 [Zakim]
17:05:12 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:05:12 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:05:14 [pfps]
ack ??P5
17:05:24 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:05:26 [Zakim]
17:05:26 [uli]
zakim, ??P2 is me
17:05:29 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:31 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:05:40 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:05:44 [Zakim]
+ +0122427aaee
17:05:48 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:05:48 [IanH]
ack +0186527aacc
17:05:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli, baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, +0122427aaee
17:05:55 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:05:55 [JeffP]
zakim, aaee is me
17:05:57 [IanH]
ack ??P2
17:06:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:06:04 [IanH]
17:06:09 [msmith]
17:06:12 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
17:06:18 [Zakim]
17:06:24 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
17:06:30 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:06:38 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:06:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe (muted), msmith, IanH, Ratnesh, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, bmotik (muted), Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau
17:06:44 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:06:55 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:06:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, IanH, baojie, bmotik, RRSAgent, msmith, Zhe, uli, Zakim, ivan, bcuencagrau, Ratnesh, sandro, pfps, trackbot
17:07:02 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:07:04 [Zakim]
17:07:33 [msmith]
topic: roll call
17:07:41 [msmith]
topic: agenda amendments?
17:07:51 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:07:58 [msmith]
ianh: no agenda amendments
17:08:06 [Zakim]
17:08:20 [msmith]
topic: PROPOSED: Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:08:26 [Zakim]
17:08:30 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:08:30 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
17:08:32 [pfps]
4 june minutes look acceptable
17:08:36 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:08:36 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:08:38 [calvanese]
calvanese has joined #owl
17:08:54 [msmith]
RESOLVED: ´╗┐Accept Previous3 Minutes (04 June)
17:09:11 [msmith]
topic: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:12 [pfps]
11 june minutes look acceptable
17:09:18 [IanH]
17:09:20 [msmith]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:21 [uli]
17:09:26 [msmith]
RESOLVED: Accept Previous2 Minutes (11 June)
17:09:38 [msmith]
topic: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:40 [pfps]
18 june minutes are *perfect* :-)
17:09:43 [msmith]
PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:09:52 [IanH]
17:10:09 [msmith]
RESOLVED: Accept Previous Minutes (18 June)
17:10:31 [msmith]
topic: f2f3
17:10:37 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaff
17:10:49 [msmith]
ianh: clarify status on
17:11:00 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:11:00 [Zakim]
sorry, calvanese, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:11:06 [msmith]
topic: pending review actions
17:11:14 [calvanese]
zakim, +39.047.101.aaff is me
17:11:14 [Zakim]
+calvanese; got it
17:11:20 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:11:20 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
17:11:22 [Zakim]
17:11:23 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:11:23 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:11:30 [Rinke]
zakim, ??P18 is me
17:11:34 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:11:35 [IanH]
17:11:41 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:11:41 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:11:48 [msmith]
ianh: on action-160 wasn't there question on top/bottom in profiles? keys in profiles?
17:11:56 [calvanese]
17:12:01 [msmith]
... there was an action on uli re: top/bottom in profiles
17:12:09 [calvanese]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:10 [Zakim]
calvanese should no longer be muted
17:12:13 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:12:13 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:12:32 [msmith]
uli: I sent an email on top/bottom in dl-lite. diego?
17:12:57 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:57 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:13:03 [IanH]
17:13:04 [uli]
17:13:13 [IanH]
ack calvanese
17:13:14 [msmith]
calvanese: dl-lite has no top concept... there is no point to having it. we don't believe it would impact properties, but there is not point
17:13:29 [msmith]
... if it doesn't change computation properties, it is just by chance
17:13:36 [msmith]
... you don't gain any expressivity
17:13:50 [msmith]
ianh: its already that it doesn't add expressive power to DL
17:13:50 [IanH]
17:14:01 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:14:01 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
17:14:06 [IanH]
ack uli
17:14:09 [msmith]
calvanese: yes, b/c you have nominals, that might not apply to profile which is strict subset
17:14:21 [bmotik]
17:14:25 [msmith]
uli: reason to add is not to add expressivity, it is to add useful syntactic sugar
17:14:31 [calvanese]
17:14:46 [msmith]
... e.g., rooting a property hierarchy from a top property
17:15:11 [msmith]
ianh: with profiles, ruling things out is costly rather than having them
17:15:25 [IanH]
17:15:27 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:15:27 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:15:27 [msmith]
... we should only rule things out if e.g., they have adverse impact on properties
17:15:33 [msmith]
msmith: +1 to ianh
17:15:42 [IanH]
ack calvanese
17:16:22 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:16:22 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:16:28 [IanH]
17:16:34 [msmith]
calvanese: I partially agree. adding construct gives indication it is to be used. this may have bad impact, even if it can be simulated with existing constructs
17:16:43 [JeffP]
+1 calvanese
17:16:47 [msmith]
... similar argument for dl-lite profile
17:16:57 [Zakim]
17:17:01 [IanH]
17:17:07 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:17:27 [msmith]
bmotik: only profile now including top/bottom is EL++
17:17:33 [uli]
17:17:46 [msmith]
... I don't think property must be in profile for editor to hang things off it in UI
17:18:11 [IanH]
17:18:14 [uli]
17:18:14 [msmith]
ianh: we had discussion about top/bottom being useful and addressed if it *tempts* users in a negative way
17:18:15 [uli]
17:18:21 [Zakim]
17:18:26 [msmith]
... it seems we can have it in dl-lite
17:18:26 [JeffP]
17:18:33 [Ratnesh]
zakim, ??P15 is Ratnesh
17:18:33 [Zakim]
+Ratnesh; got it
17:18:37 [msmith]
calvanese: I'd like to check the details on whether we can have it
17:18:59 [JeffP]
17:19:15 [msmith]
ianh: revisit this in future telecon
17:19:19 [IanH]
17:19:22 [msmith]
... top/bottom is in el++
17:19:30 [msmith]
bmotik: not in owl-r
17:19:43 [msmith]
ianh: should we action someone to investigate easy keys
17:19:45 [IanH]
17:19:58 [msmith]
bmotik: no. its clear no easy keys in dl-lite
17:20:03 [JeffP]
17:20:04 [calvanese]
17:20:11 [msmith]
... I added it to owl-r
17:20:12 [IanH]
17:20:25 [msmith]
... unknown for EL++
17:20:34 [msmith]
jeffp: top/bottom in el++ ?
17:20:43 [msmith]
bmotik: yes, checked with Carsten
17:20:53 [msmith]
jeffp: it doesn't have nominals
17:20:55 [uli]
17:20:58 [uli]
17:21:03 [msmith]
ianh: yes, presumably it doesn't hurt
17:21:13 [msmith]
bmotik: yes, it doesn't hurt
17:21:15 [IanH]
ack JeffP
17:21:18 [msmith]
jefffp: what about el+
17:21:20 [bcuencagrau]
EL++ without nominals
17:21:23 [IanH]
17:21:26 [msmith]
bmotik: what's el+
17:21:46 [msmith]
jeffp: el+ is supported by CEL
17:21:56 [JeffP]
17:22:04 [msmith]
ianh: a bit off topic, we're only cerned with EL++ profile, not other fragments
17:22:14 [msmith]
17:22:28 [IanH]
17:22:51 [msmith]
... interesting that CEL doesn't support all of EL++ since we'll need to follow-up moving forward the recs
17:23:36 [msmith]
calvanese: follow-up on keys in dl-lite, and boris's comments on it adding recursion. we'd like to see some version of keys, could we consider a restricted version.
17:23:41 [msmith]
ianh: are you willing to take action
17:23:56 [msmith]
action: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite
17:23:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-162 - Investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [on Diego Calvanese - due 2008-07-02].
17:24:12 [msmith]
´╗┐ action: calvanese to investigate easy keys in dl-lite
17:24:21 [IanH]
17:24:31 [msmith]
ACCEPT ACTION-160 as completed
17:24:36 [msmith]
topic: due and overdue actions
17:24:46 [IanH]
17:24:55 [IanH]
ack calvanese
17:24:56 [calvanese]
17:24:57 [msmith]
ianh: action-155
17:25:12 [pfps]
could we have a pointer to the document from the ACTION-155 page?
17:25:16 [IanH]
17:25:29 [msmith]
ianh: there is a document, we also need implementation
17:25:40 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:25:40 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
17:25:46 [msmith]
ianh: yes, we should add pointer to doc to action
17:26:01 [ivan]
17:26:10 [msmith]
... bump date forward for action-155 pending arrival of an implementation?
17:26:18 [ivan]
17:26:22 [ivan]
17:26:26 [msmith]
ianh: ok, that's what we'll do
17:26:28 [IanH]
17:26:40 [msmith]
ianh: action-156, action-157
17:26:47 [msmith]
alanr: push them both a week
17:26:52 [msmith]
ianh: ok
17:27:13 [IanH]
17:27:14 [alanr]
17:27:15 [msmith]
topic: issue-21 and issue-24
17:27:42 [IanH]
17:27:47 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:27:53 [msmith]
ianh: proposal to resolve says "per pfps email and subsequent discussion", are we really here? it doesn't seem complete
17:28:01 [bmotik]
17:28:05 [IanH]
17:28:07 [msmith]
alanr: we're close, have 1 issue open
17:28:28 [msmith]
... is inconsistent independent of header? bmotik and I disagreed
17:28:40 [pfps]
17:28:54 [msmith]
... it may be case inconsistency is noticed by user, not maintainer, we'd like to state this
17:28:54 [IanH]
17:28:59 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:29:06 [msmith]
bmotik: one ontology saying something about another is recipe for disaster
17:29:12 [pfps]
17:29:21 [msmith]
... breaks encapsulation. let's people say anything about anything
17:29:35 [alanr]
how is this different from having axioms on a class in two different ontologies?
17:29:37 [IanH]
17:29:40 [Rinke]
Not sure whether this has anything to do with the issues per se? Seems that the issues are being overloaded with side-issues that prevent them from being resolved.
17:29:40 [msmith]
...detecting these incompatibilities and maintenance could get out of hand
17:29:49 [alanr]
detecting is trivial
17:29:54 [alanr]
17:29:57 [IanH]
17:30:01 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:30:07 [pfps]
17:30:25 [IanH]
17:30:29 [bmotik]
17:30:30 [uli]
17:30:31 [msmith]
alanr: I'm not persuaded
17:30:37 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:31:03 [IanH]
17:31:04 [msmith]
bmotik: allowing one ont to say something about another seems to me as a conceptual hack
17:31:26 [Rinke]
+1 to separate issue!
17:31:29 [msmith]
alanr: you're arguing conceptual integrity vs. use case from personal experience
17:31:40 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:31:40 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:31:42 [msmith]
... we can spin this off to another issue and resolve the rest
17:31:56 [msmith]
uli: +1 on separate issue
17:32:14 [bmotik]
17:32:15 [msmith]
... +1 to bmotik that this will open can of worms and may be difficult to explain behavior
17:32:18 [alanr]
17:32:33 [uli]
ack uli
17:32:48 [IanH]
17:32:51 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:32:55 [IanH]
17:33:02 [msmith]
ianh: I see what you mean, just as you don't have control over another on, you may not have control over statements saying what onts are incompatible
17:33:10 [IanH]
17:33:10 [msmith]
bmotik: already what we have is an improvement
17:33:15 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:33:18 [IanH]
17:33:19 [msmith]
alanr: not sure that's the case for owl 1
17:33:26 [msmith]
bmotik: but there was no semantics
17:33:35 [IanH]
17:33:37 [msmith]
alanr: yes, problem was no teeth to semantics
17:34:06 [msmith]
bmotik: tool is more that welcome to do this. seems to be extrapolating from one use case
17:34:37 [msmith]
ianh: given we have agreement other than this, can we move forward closing ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-24 and open new issue to discuss versioning?
17:34:44 [bmotik]
17:34:48 [msmith]
alanr: incompatible with, not versioning
17:34:50 [pfps]
fine by me
17:34:56 [Rinke]
17:35:07 [msmith]
ianh: yes, incompatibleWith
17:35:55 [IanH]
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, modulo opening new issue on incompatibleWith
17:36:34 [msmith]
bmotik: if we move forward splitting, I think we should take everything out
17:36:45 [bmotik]
17:36:49 [msmith]
alanr: I disagree unless strong opposition. it would be a step backwards
17:37:09 [msmith]
ianh: if we resolve in favor of your approach, doesn't that mean ripping out what's there now?
17:37:26 [IanH]
17:37:27 [msmith]
alanr: ontology header is better than nothing, if we remove it we may have to readd it later
17:37:40 [msmith]
bmotik: I'd prefer to discuss if we need incompatibleWith at all
17:38:14 [alanr]
17:38:19 [msmith]
alanr: it seems we're now moving backwards
17:38:39 [msmith]
pfps: I suggest going as proposal says, discuss incompatible with as separate issue
17:38:48 [msmith]
bmotik: out of document?
17:39:06 [msmith]
pfps: minimal change to current doc. it is an interim state, even if no one likes it
17:39:12 [msmith]
bmotik: ok
17:39:34 [IanH]
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:39:46 [pfps]
+1 to resolve this way
17:39:49 [bmotik]
17:39:51 [alanr]
17:39:53 [uli]
17:39:53 [Rinke]
17:39:56 [IanH]
17:39:58 [ivan]
17:39:59 [msmith]
17:40:03 [baojie]
17:40:08 [Ratnesh]
17:40:17 [bcuencagrau]
17:40:25 [IanH]
RESOLVED: resolve Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning, per update from Boris, Peter's email and subsequent discussion, but open new issue on status of incompatibleWith
17:40:37 [Zhe]
17:40:38 [alanr]
happy happy
17:40:42 [alanr]
joy joy
17:40:46 [bmotik]
ACTION to bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:40:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:41:00 [bmotik]
ACTION bmotik2: Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24
17:41:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-163 - Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [on Boris Motik - due 2008-07-02].
17:41:03 [msmith]
Topic: ISSUE-81
17:41:05 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:41:06 [IanH]
17:41:37 [IanH]
17:41:53 [msmith]
ianh: ISSUE-81 can be resolved using bmotik's proposal to use an alternative vocabulary for reification
17:42:08 [msmith]
... any reasons not to resolve?
17:42:18 [IanH]
PROPOSED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email
17:42:21 [pfps]
+1 to proceed apace
17:42:24 [bmotik]
17:42:25 [Rinke]
17:42:26 [IanH]
17:42:27 [msmith]
17:42:28 [bcuencagrau]
17:42:37 [ivan]
17:42:37 [Ratnesh]
17:42:46 [uli]
17:42:58 [IanH]
RESOLVED: resolve Issue 81 Reification of Negative Property Assertions, per Boris's email (
17:43:06 [alanr]
17:43:09 [ivan]
happy happy
17:43:15 [Zhe]
17:43:16 [JeffP]
17:43:35 [msmith]
topic: issue discussions
17:43:47 [Rinke]
17:43:57 [msmith]
ianh: brief revisit of profile naming (ISSUE-108)
17:44:10 [bmotik_]
bmotik_ has joined #owl
17:44:28 [msmith]
...(as in Carsten's email) at least OWL-R and OWL-EL names are ok, DL-Lite needs a name
17:44:48 [msmith]
... Carsten proposed calling it owl-db, but that's likely to be contentious
17:44:48 [IanH]
17:44:50 [msmith]
17:44:51 [calvanese]
17:44:52 [Zhe]
17:44:59 [bmotik__]
bmotik__ has joined #owl
17:45:01 [IanH]
17:45:29 [msmith]
msmith: why can't we call it dl-lite?
17:45:30 [calvanese]
unmute me
17:45:34 [IanH]
ack msmith
17:45:35 [ivan]
ack msmith
17:45:39 [calvanese]
unmute me
17:45:40 [alanr]
we want to market to a larger community!!
17:45:48 [msmith]
ianh: owl-lite is deprecated, owl dl-lite seems rather long winded
17:45:51 [calvanese]
zakim, unmute me
17:45:51 [Zakim]
calvanese should no longer be muted
17:46:04 [sandro]
"OWL2 Lite" ?
17:46:21 [alanr]
17:46:22 [IanH]
17:46:25 [Zhe]
17:46:27 [msmith]
calvanese: we believe name owl-db would be suitable, since owl-r people like owl-r lets use owl-db
17:46:28 [IanH]
ack calvanese
17:46:30 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
17:46:30 [Zakim]
Zhe should no longer be muted
17:46:38 [msmith]
... owl-d doesn't evoke anything related to dl-lite
17:46:50 [alanr]
17:46:51 [IanH]
17:46:51 [msmith]
... I am not in favor of owl-d
17:46:56 [IanH]
ack Zhe
17:47:06 [IanH]
17:47:07 [msmith]
zhe: is this profile specific for db modeling integration and nothing else?
17:47:16 [IanH]
17:47:21 [msmith]
... owl-db name implies something
17:47:44 [alanr]
quantify "large"?
17:47:50 [uli]
zakim, who is speaking
17:47:50 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is speaking', uli
17:47:50 [msmith]
calvanese: profile was created to connect to large databases. we believe it is specifically suited to databases
17:47:55 [alanr]
millions, 100s of millions?
17:47:56 [IanH]
17:48:03 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
17:48:07 [alanr]
10s of billions?
17:48:11 [IanH]
17:48:15 [msmith]
.... also conceptually matches expressivity of databases
17:48:16 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (4%), Ratnesh (9%), calvanese (27%), Zhe (82%)
17:48:33 [msmith]
zhe: misleading to me because dl-lite can be provided to other domains
17:48:52 [msmith]
... plus gives users belief dedicated to storing owl
17:49:00 [Ratnesh]
zakim, mute me
17:49:00 [Zakim]
Ratnesh should now be muted
17:49:03 [IanH]
17:49:04 [msmith]
... gives impression only implementable with db, nothing else
17:49:23 [msmith]
... dl-lite could apply to sparql endpoint as well
17:49:27 [IanH]
17:49:42 [msmith]
calvanese: one point is that its implemented using database technologies
17:49:55 [msmith]
zhe: is this implementation specific?
17:50:02 [msmith]
calvanese: its how the profile came about
17:50:12 [msmith]
... its tuned to these features
17:50:26 [bmotik]
17:50:27 [alanr]
17:50:29 [IanH]
17:50:42 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:50:44 [IanH]
17:50:45 [msmith]
ianh: useful exchange, and what we suspected. owl-db is controversial. any other less controversial names?
17:50:45 [Rinke]
Profile names are easily interpreted as denoting disjoint `features'
17:50:55 [msmith]
bmotik: why not 1,2,3 or A,B,C?
17:51:07 [alanr]
the only reasonable mnemonic is "R"
17:51:20 [msmith]
ianh: we have reasonable names for EL++ and OWL-R which people are comfortable with. isn't 1,2,3 silly?
17:51:28 [msmith]
bmotik: what's wrong with current names?
17:51:28 [IanH]
17:51:38 [msmith]
ianh: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful
17:51:38 [bmotik]
17:52:06 [msmith]
alanr: only name with good pneumonic is OWL-R, EL++ is historical and only relevant to small audience
17:52:14 [IanH]
17:52:19 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:52:25 [sandro]
+1 get away from history.
17:52:31 [msmith]
... I support getting away from historical names and suggest 1 letter (fairly meaningless) names
17:53:07 [alanr]
yes, peter, but for how many others?
17:53:07 [IanH]
17:53:08 [sandro]
"DL" is another bad name.
17:53:10 [msmith]
bmotik: owl dl-lite is too much of a mouthful, what about just dl-lite
17:53:18 [alanr]
I agree, that DL is another bad name
17:53:24 [IanH]
17:53:35 [sandro]
q+ to propose leaving this to marketing
17:53:36 [msmith]
... el++ has established itself, it doesn't need the owl prefix
17:53:36 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:53:39 [IanH]
17:53:48 [msmith]
ianh: that may be a step too far
17:53:49 [alanr]
OWL-C for OWL-DL (OWL-Complete)
17:53:56 [calvanese]
17:54:02 [alanr]
OWL-A for (OWL-Anything for OWL-Full)
17:54:04 [IanH]
ack sandro
17:54:04 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to propose leaving this to marketing
17:54:04 [Rinke]
DL-Lite: about assertions, why not OWL-A
17:54:06 [IanH]
17:54:22 [msmith]
sandro: we are worst people to pick names. someone should subject a marketing department to this not us
17:54:36 [msmith]
... knowledge of history is an impediment
17:55:12 [IanH]
17:55:15 [msmith]
ianh: another side, the marketing people ask you to explain because they know nothing. so, names they create will depend on who explains them
17:55:24 [Rinke]
agree with Sandro, one complaint that came up in my little survey was that people didn't know what the names meant
17:55:33 [ivan]
+1 to Rinke
17:55:46 [IanH]
17:55:46 [msmith]
sandro: names should be targeted at people making the purchase decision
17:55:56 [msmith]
calvanese: name is indication, choice will be made on features
17:56:12 [alanr]
I was convinced
17:56:15 [msmith]
... I made several good arguments for why owl-db is good for dl-lite
17:56:25 [alanr]
17:56:28 [msmith]
... I didn't hear compelling, non-marketing counterarguments
17:56:31 [Zhe]
17:56:38 [ivan]
ack calvanese
17:56:46 [ivan]
ack Zhe
17:57:14 [msmith]
zhe: why not call owl-r owl-db? oracle is largest database in the world and implements owl-r?
17:57:25 [JeffP]
We can call it OWL-Aberdeen
17:57:43 [ivan]
JeffP: I would prefer OWL-Amsterdam!
17:57:48 [JeffP]
17:57:49 [Rinke]
me too!
17:57:49 [msmith]
ianh: enough of this discussion. owl-db is just too attractive, so probably no one can have it
17:57:57 [sandro]
+1 to random city names. :-)
17:58:12 [ivan]
rowl, dowl?
17:58:14 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:58:14 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
17:58:21 [Rinke]
17:58:21 [alanr]
who gets OWL-Bagdad?
17:58:22 [msmith]
topic: issue-67 reification
17:58:47 [IanH]
17:58:49 [pfps]
17:58:59 [msmith]
... anyone?
17:59:00 [IanH]
17:59:11 [msmith]
pfps: I don't think anything needs to be done, current status is fine
17:59:14 [alanr]
17:59:17 [bmotik]
17:59:20 [ivan]
ack pfps
17:59:20 [pfps]
17:59:22 [msmith]
ianh: current status is that we're using rdf reification
17:59:30 [msmith]
alanr: I'm happy with current reification
17:59:32 [Zhe]
second alanr
17:59:34 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:59:38 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:59:42 [msmith]
... as long as triple being reified is included
17:59:52 [msmith]
bmotik: I don't think we should output triple being reified
17:59:59 [IanH]
18:00:03 [Zhe]
18:00:05 [msmith]
... this can be handled in the semantics
18:00:09 [alanr]
that's not an argument against. It's an argument that says we can also do it a different way
18:00:09 [IanH]
18:00:30 [ivan]
ack Zhe
18:00:39 [alanr]
18:00:43 [IanH]
18:00:47 [bmotik]
18:00:49 [msmith]
zhe: conceptually, bmotik is 100% correct. but with tons of annotations this makes implementers life difficult
18:00:55 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:00:57 [msmith]
... what's the objection to adding the triple
18:01:03 [pfps]
18:01:23 [msmith]
alanr: yes, what's argument against? this is a divergence from rdf semantics
18:01:39 [IanH]
18:01:48 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:01:56 [alanr]
I put a proposal for how to solve this on the email
18:02:11 [msmith]
bmotik: impossible to know when mapping rdf to ontology if ontology contained axiom or just annotation of axiom
18:02:17 [Zhe]
18:02:27 [alanr]
18:02:30 [msmith]
... I consider sticking with current better solution
18:02:51 [msmith]
+1 to supporting annotation of non-present axioms
18:03:08 [alanr]
There is also rdf/xml support for concise reification when it includes the triple
18:03:16 [pfps]
18:03:34 [IanH]
ack Zhe
18:03:36 [msmith]
pfps: I don't believe argument that additional processing burden is accurate since it introduces an additional triple to parse
18:03:54 [msmith]
zhe: bmotik, I believe you proposed solutions via email to some of these problems.
18:04:09 [msmith]
... pfps, oracle believes not including triple will make life harder
18:04:12 [IanH]
18:04:23 [bmotik]
+q to respont to Zhe
18:04:55 [IanH]
18:04:59 [msmith]
alanr: support for concise reification in RDF/XML, but only in some circumstances
18:05:01 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:05:10 [sandro]
(er, no, you still need to parse the triples even when not using the RDF/XML trick.)
18:05:27 [Zakim]
18:05:29 [msmith]
bmotik: are you proposing we use this special syntax
18:06:00 [msmith]
alanr: if triple is in serialization, on can put an id on the predicate to indicate reification
18:06:10 [msmith]
... there is no shorthand for only the reified part
18:06:17 [msmith]
ianh: closing discussion soon
18:06:21 [IanH]
18:06:38 [IanH]
18:06:43 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:06:43 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to respont to Zhe
18:07:19 [alanr]
no bad ida
18:07:29 [alanr]
better to add a special annotation so they are parallel
18:07:37 [IanH]
18:08:12 [IanH]
18:08:14 [alanr]
I don't understand
18:08:20 [ivan]
me neither
18:08:26 [msmith]
bmotik: one could use following procedure.... if re-ified and non-reified version are present... but this is non-monotonic. question to zhe - if hint that reified triples in RDF/XML should use this shorthand, would that be ok?
18:08:43 [ivan]
I do not think we can do that, Boris
18:09:00 [IanH]
18:09:05 [Zhe]
sounds good
18:09:10 [msmith]
ianh: take to email, then revisit discussion
18:09:39 [msmith]
topic: general discussion, schedule
18:09:45 [IanH]
18:10:12 [msmith]
ianh: agenda has short list of things needing attention
18:10:24 [msmith]
... features: 1) rich annotations, 2) nary datatypes
18:10:26 [IanH]
18:10:27 [uli]
Bijan isn't here
18:10:32 [sandro]
zakim, where is bijan?
18:10:32 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not understand your question
18:10:47 [msmith]
... no bijan? :( perhaps uli on nary?
18:10:50 [IanH]
18:10:52 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:52 [Zakim]
uli was not muted, uli
18:11:18 [msmith]
uli: what are you after?
18:11:36 [msmith]
ianh: I'd like some comments on schedule?
18:12:14 [msmith]
uli: we could be moving really faster. I won't be around for next two weeks, otherwise I'd say proposal in 1 week
18:12:27 [msmith]
ianh: a concrete proposal for what should be added to spec?
18:12:42 [msmith]
... but not now?
18:12:51 [alanr]
probably depends on what happens next week and the week after too...
18:12:57 [msmith]
uli: depends on this week.
18:12:59 [IanH]
18:13:05 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:13:05 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:13:07 [IanH]
18:13:07 [msmith]
ianh: this is reasonable guesstimate
18:13:43 [msmith]
alanr: we should get quick check-in on prioritizing things. rich annotations, nary
18:13:53 [bmotik]
18:14:06 [msmith]
... how are people on nary? priorities, benefits vs cost of delaying?
18:14:22 [msmith]
... when do we say it's out?
18:14:45 [msmith]
ianh: is my answer some number of weeks?
18:14:54 [bmotik]
18:15:10 [bmotik]
18:15:11 [msmith]
alanr: I would like to hear from people. I'd like to hear input.
18:15:35 [msmith]
ianh: is it significant delay worthy?
18:15:39 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:15:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, msmith, IanH, Ivan, Sandro, uli (muted), baojie, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau (muted), Alan, bmotik, calvanese (muted), Ratnesh
18:15:43 [Zakim]
... (muted)
18:15:51 [msmith]
msmith: I think nary are important and would be prepared to wait some
18:15:58 [uli]
"How horrible would you think failing on n-ary be?"
18:16:04 [pfps]
i'm prepared to wait forever as long as it isn't more than 15 minutes (thanks Oscar Wilde)
18:16:09 [uli]
18:16:11 [bmotik]
I believe that n-ary datatypes are a high-risk feature
18:16:39 [Achille]
we can leave without nary
18:16:44 [alanr]
I'm concerned about unknowns with n-aries, and known issues, like difficulty in combinations.
18:16:47 [IanH]
18:16:48 [msmith]
bmotik: adding nary adds a huge burden to developers. some algorithmic issues haven't been resolved and I'm skeptical
18:16:57 [msmith]
msmith: notes Carsten also absent
18:17:04 [uli]
good point
18:17:06 [Achille]
it is not worth delaying the spec for it
18:17:11 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:17:11 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
18:17:14 [IanH]
18:17:16 [msmith]
ianh: not time now to get to into the details
18:17:16 [ivan]
ack bmotik
18:17:19 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:17:22 [IanH]
ack uli
18:17:30 [ivan]
18:17:38 [msmith]
uli: not having any nary support would be regretted later as something we missed
18:17:50 [msmith]
ianh: perhaps we should set some implementation bar
18:18:05 [IanH]
18:18:07 [msmith]
... 2 implementations to get to rec, correct?
18:18:07 [sandro]
18:18:09 [alanr]
18:18:18 [ivan]
ack sandro
18:18:20 [uli]
ack uli
18:18:41 [msmith]
sandro: in general, should only add things for which we think reasonable to there may be two implementations
18:18:48 [ivan]
ACK alanr
18:18:49 [pfps]
+1 to "at risk"iness
18:18:50 [msmith]
... if we're unsure, that means its at risk
18:19:19 [msmith]
alanr: that doesn't help because there's significant work to get it into the spec
18:19:47 [msmith]
ianh: i agree with that, but the implementation point clarifies just how much expressive power we want to add.
18:19:51 [alanr]
q+ to give one more thought
18:19:59 [IanH]
18:20:07 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:20:07 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to give one more thought
18:20:10 [msmith]
... those wanting it very powerful must weight that against cost of implementing it so that it can proceed
18:20:11 [IanH]
18:20:42 [bmotik]
18:20:46 [IanH]
18:20:46 [msmith]
alanr: so far focused on one type of concrete domain extension, < > simple arithmetic
18:20:56 [uli]
alanr, can you explain this?
18:21:05 [msmith]
... perhaps allen interval relations instead. I'm taking this up with carsten
18:21:07 [alanr]
uli, yes, via email
18:21:22 [msmith]
bmotik: allen interval for time intervals will not solve problems for owl
18:21:44 [alanr]
won't solve all time problems for time. But may solve some some time problems
18:21:45 [IanH]
18:21:46 [msmith]
bmotik: nary datatypes won't help this ...
18:21:54 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:22:27 [msmith]
...(scribe interpret) because they only apply to data properties on a single individuals (not comparison between multiple events)
18:22:37 [msmith]
ianh: will ask bijan next week about this
18:23:01 [msmith]
ianh: also discussion about datatypes in general, what should be supported. is this going to derail us?
18:23:03 [bmotik]
18:23:04 [IanH]
18:23:12 [IanH]
18:23:17 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:23:20 [msmith]
bmotik: thinks we can resolve. we have to resolve
18:23:21 [alanr]
I have concerns that this will take time.
18:23:40 [IanH]
18:23:43 [msmith]
... I don't think solution is difficult
18:23:54 [Zakim]
18:24:17 [uli]
18:24:23 [uli]
18:24:26 [uli]
18:24:36 [msmith]
ianh: ISSUE-118 is languishing
18:24:47 [alanr]
18:24:48 [IanH]
18:24:52 [msmith]
... any champion for this issue?
18:25:24 [msmith]
alanr: I've suggested unnamed and bnodes as alternative constructs
18:25:47 [msmith]
ianh: documents need to be produced. test, ufds
18:25:48 [alanr]
action: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes
18:25:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-164 - Send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-02].
18:25:57 [IanH]
18:26:25 [IanH]
18:26:30 [alanr]
mike, you know about action=raw ? to get raw mediawiki pages?
18:26:44 [alanr]
18:26:46 [msmith]
alanr, no. thanks
18:27:18 [msmith]
msmith: re tests, I'm targeting f2f3 as a milestone. two parts, the tests, and the documents
18:27:26 [IanH]
18:27:29 [msmith]
... I'll try to get something to the group before f2f3 on each
18:27:32 [alanr]
mike, see
18:27:49 [msmith]
ianh: none for ufd
18:28:00 [msmith]
pfps: I think bijan is working on primer
18:28:09 [msmith]
topic: additional business
18:28:12 [JeffP]
18:28:17 [ivan]
18:28:17 [msmith]
ianh: no additional business, adjourn
18:28:17 [Zhe]
18:28:18 [uli]
bye bye
18:28:21 [Zakim]
18:28:23 [Ratnesh]
18:28:24 [Zakim]
18:28:25 [Zakim]
18:28:26 [Zakim]
18:28:26 [Zakim]
18:28:28 [Zakim]
18:28:28 [Zakim]
18:28:30 [Zakim]
18:28:32 [Zakim]
18:28:33 [Zakim]
18:28:38 [Zakim]
18:28:41 [sandro]
msmith, I put some notes about scribing here:
18:28:45 [Zakim]
18:28:48 [IanH]
I'm hoping that Turkey wins on penalties :-)
18:29:02 [msmith]
rrsagent, pointer
18:29:02 [RRSAgent]
18:29:14 [alanr]
18:29:18 [uli]
I hope that they have great game
18:29:26 [sandro]
Zakim, list attendees
18:29:26 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:29:30 [Zakim]
... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:29:39 [Zakim]
18:31:07 [msmith]
zakim, bye
18:31:07 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, +1.202.408.aabb, +0186527aacc, Ivan, Sandro, Ratnesh, Zhe, msmith, +1.518.276.aadd, baojie, bmotik, IanH, uli,
18:31:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
18:31:10 [Zakim]
... +0122427aaee, Achille, JeffP, bcuencagrau, Alan, calvanese, Rinke
18:31:21 [msmith]
rrsagent, make log public
18:31:32 [msmith]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:31:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate msmith
18:31:39 [msmith]
rrsagent, bye
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: calvanese to investigate top/bottom roles in dl-lite [1]
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Update the strucutral spec according to resolution of ISSUE 21 and ISSUE 24 [2]
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: alan to send email re: suggestions (again) for unnamed individuals *in addition* to bnodes [3]
18:31:39 [RRSAgent]
recorded in