IRC log of owl on 2008-07-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:10 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/16-owl-irc
16:54:25 [pfps]: Zakim, this will be OWL
16:54:25 [Zakim]: ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()12:00PM scheduled to start 54 minutes ago
16:54:39 [pfps]: Zakim, who is here?
16:54:39 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has not yet started, pfps
16:54:40 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, m_schnei, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
16:58:41 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
16:58:48 [Zakim]: +??P4
16:58:59 [m_schnei]: Zakim, ??P4 is me
16:58:59 [Zakim]: +m_schnei; got it
16:59:05 [rob]: rob has joined #owl
16:59:26 [ratnesh]: ratnesh has joined #owl
16:59:30 [alanr]: alanr has joined #owl
16:59:48 [Zakim]: -m_schnei
16:59:49 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
16:59:49 [Zakim]: Attendees were m_schnei
16:59:50 [bcuencagrau]: bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:00:07 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has now started
17:00:07 [IanH]: IanH has joined #owl
17:00:12 [uli]: uli has joined #owl
17:00:14 [Zakim]: +rob
17:00:26 [rob]: Zakim, mute me
17:00:26 [Zakim]: sorry, rob, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
17:00:47 [bmotik]: bmotik has joined #owl
17:00:58 [IanH]: zakim, this is OWL
17:00:58 [Zakim]: IanH, this was already SW_OWL()12:00PM
17:01:00 [Zakim]: ok, IanH; that matches SW_OWL()12:00PM
17:01:09 [Zakim]: +??P2
17:01:09 [bijan]: bijan has joined #owl
17:01:14 [Zakim]: +IanH
17:01:15 [uli]: zakim, ??P2 is me
17:01:15 [Zakim]: +uli; got it
17:01:16 [rob]: Zakim, mute me
17:01:16 [Zakim]: +??P11
17:01:16 [Zakim]: rob should now be muted
17:01:19 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:01:19 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:01:21 [Zakim]: +alanr
17:01:25 [Zhe]: Zhe has joined #owl
17:01:26 [alanr]: zakim, who is here?
17:01:26 [Zakim]: On the phone I see rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH, ??P11, alanr
17:01:27 [bmotik]: Zakim, ??P11 is me
17:01:27 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, alanr, ratnesh, rob, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, m_schnei, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:01:30 [Zakim]: +bmotik; got it
17:01:30 [Zakim]: +??P10
17:01:36 [bmotik]: Zakim, mute me
17:01:36 [Zakim]: bmotik should now be muted
17:01:38 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, ??P10 is me
17:01:38 [Zakim]: +bcuencagrau; got it
17:01:43 [Zakim]: +Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:01:46 [ivan]: ivan has joined #owl
17:01:46 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, mute me
17:01:50 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:01:57 [uli]: q-
17:02:01 [IanH]: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.16/Agenda
17:02:02 [Zakim]: +??P13
17:02:02 [ivan]: zakim, dial ivan-voip
17:02:03 [pfps]: Zakim, ack uli
17:02:06 [Zakim]: ok, ivan; the call is being made
17:02:08 [Zakim]: +Ivan
17:02:08 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:02:10 [Zakim]: unmuting uli
17:02:13 [Zakim]: I see no one on the speaker queue
17:02:18 [Zakim]: sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:02:22 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:02:24 [Zakim]: +Zhe
17:02:26 [IanH]: ScribeNick: bmotik
17:02:28 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:02:32 [Achille]: Achille has joined #OWL
17:02:32 [Zhe]: zakim, mute me
17:02:32 [Zakim]: Zhe should now be muted
17:02:34 [bijan]: zakim, ??P13 is me
17:02:34 [Zakim]: +bijan; got it
17:02:36 [Zakim]: +??P21
17:02:39 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:02:39 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:02:43 [IanH]: RRSAgent, make records public
17:02:50 [IanH]: zakim, who is here?
17:02:50 [Zakim]: On the phone I see rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH, bmotik (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), Ivan, Zhe (muted), ??P21
17:02:53 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Achille, ivan, Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, alanr, ratnesh, rob, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:02:53 [ratnesh]: zakim, P21 is ratnesh
17:02:53 [Zakim]: sorry, ratnesh, I do not recognize a party named 'P21'
17:03:14 [uli]: zakim, ??P21 is ratnesh
17:03:14 [Zakim]: +ratnesh; got it
17:03:15 [IanH]: zakim, ??P21 is ratnesh
17:03:16 [Zakim]: I already had ??P21 as ratnesh, IanH
17:03:22 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
17:03:31 [Achille]: Zakim, IBM is me
17:03:31 [Zakim]: +Achille; got it
17:03:50 [bmotik]: Yes
17:04:03 [bmotik]: I'll try
17:04:07 [JeffP]: JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:47 [alanr]: zakim, who is here?
17:04:47 [Zakim]: On the phone I see rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH, bmotik (muted), alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), Ivan, Zhe (muted), ratnesh, Achille
17:04:55 [Zakim]: On IRC I see JeffP, Achille, ivan, Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, IanH, bcuencagrau, alanr, ratnesh, rob, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:05:08 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl
17:05:15 [Zakim]: +Evan_Wallace
17:05:16 [bmotik]: alanr: No agenda amendments
17:05:24 [rob]: looked reasonable to me
17:05:27 [IanH]: Minutes look good to me
17:05:44 [Zakim]: +??P0
17:05:48 [bmotik]: PROPOSED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)
17:05:49 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:05:50 [pfps]: they have all the requisite parts - their veracity I can't determine
17:05:56 [Zakim]: sorry, m_schnei, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:05:56 [m_schnei]: zakim, ??P0 is me
17:06:02 [Zakim]: +m_schnei; got it
17:06:03 [bmotik]: RESOLVED: Accept previous minutes (9 July)
17:06:11 [bmotik]: Topic: 3F2F
17:06:28 [bmotik]: alanr: Please register whether you'll be or not at 3F2F
17:06:39 [bmotik]: alanr: Please give us feedback about the agenda
17:06:43 [bmotik]: Zakim, unmute me
17:06:43 [Zakim]: bmotik should no longer be muted
17:07:05 [IanH]: Lot of background noise, including crying baby?
17:07:06 [bmotik]: Topic: action item status
17:07:17 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:07:19 [ewallace]: zakim, who is talking
17:07:20 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:07:22 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is talking', ewallace
17:07:59 [bmotik]: alanr: I can't invest more time into ACTION-159 , so let's drop it
17:08:05 [pfps]: q+
17:08:17 [bmotik]: alanr: I produced input for ACTION-166
17:08:28 [bmotik]: pfps: I don't see any rationale to using two files in the write-up
17:08:48 [bmotik]: alanr: We are discussing here the completion of the action, not the contents
17:08:56 [bmotik]: pfps: I consider the action finished
17:08:58 [ivan]: ack pfps
17:09:08 [bmotik]: Topic: due and overdue actions
17:09:19 [ivan]: q+
17:09:38 [bmotik]: alanr: Jie has initiated discussion about ACTION-150
17:10:04 [bmotik]: ivan: Someone from our side should check owl:internationalizedString
17:10:12 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:10:12 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:10:33 [bmotik]: alanr: Michael, what is the status of the OWL-Full semantics?
17:10:42 [m_schnei]: OWL Full: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/FullDraft
17:10:48 [bmotik]: mschneider: There is a draft
17:10:59 [bmotik]: mschneider: It is half-finished
17:11:12 [bmotik]: alanr: Where do we stand? How far are we from the working draft?
17:11:31 [bmotik]: mschneider: I have already added most of the semantic conditions.
17:11:42 [bmotik]: mschneider: There is some editorial work and some open issues.
17:11:49 [bmotik]: mschneider: The import question is open.
17:12:11 [bmotik]: alanr: Can you produce a single document by the F2F?
17:12:31 [bmotik]: mschneider: The present document can't be turned into a working draft by the F2F -- not enough time.
17:12:32 [IanH_]: IanH_ has joined #owl
17:12:51 [bmotik]: alanr: It would be great to have a document ready for review by 3F3F.
17:12:56 [bmotik]: mschneider: I hope so.
17:12:58 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:12:58 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:13:18 [bmotik]: alanr: ACTION-157: I have a response from Judy Brewer
17:13:23 [alanr]: q?
17:13:31 [alanr]: ack ivan
17:13:32 [ivan]: ack ivan
17:13:34 [bijan]: q+
17:13:39 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:13:39 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:13:41 [bmotik]: alanr: ACTION-157 gets postponed
17:13:59 [bmotik]: bijan: I could take it around to Robert Stevens
17:14:10 [ivan]: bijan++
17:14:14 [bmotik]: alanr: That would be very good
17:14:19 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:14:19 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:14:31 [bmotik]: alanr: Please add an action for that
17:14:40 [uli]: zakim, ack me
17:14:40 [Zakim]: unmuting uli
17:14:41 [Zakim]: I see bijan on the speaker queue
17:14:44 [bijan]: ACTION on Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens
17:14:44 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:14:52 [bijan]: ACTION: Bijan to test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens
17:14:52 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-168 - Test our documents for accessibility with Robert Stevens [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-07-23].
17:14:53 [bmotik]: alanr: Uli, what is the status on the top/bottom roles?
17:14:57 [bmotik]: uli: The action is done
17:15:09 [bijan]: He's supposed to send email about it
17:15:16 [uli]: zakim, mute me
17:15:16 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
17:15:33 [bmotik]: bmotik: I have already added these roles to the document
17:15:41 [bmotik]: alanr: Just send an e-mail documenting it
17:15:58 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:15:58 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:16:31 [bmotik]: alanr: Should we close ACTION-165 as withdrawn?
17:16:40 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:16:40 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:17:09 [IanH_]: zakim, who is here?
17:17:09 [Zakim]: On the phone I see rob (muted), uli (muted), IanH (muted), bmotik, alanr, bcuencagrau (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bijan (muted), Ivan, Zhe (muted), ratnesh, Achille,
17:17:12 [Zakim]: ... Evan_Wallace, m_schnei (muted)
17:17:13 [Zakim]: On IRC I see IanH_, m_schnei, JeffP, Achille, ivan, Zhe, bijan, bmotik, uli, bcuencagrau, alanr, ratnesh, rob, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, sandro, ewallace, trackbot
17:17:22 [bmotik]: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn
17:17:28 [ewallace]: +1
17:17:29 [m_schnei]: +1 (FZI)
17:17:30 [alanr]: +1
17:17:32 [bijan]: +!
17:17:33 [pfps]: +inf
17:17:34 [bmotik]: +1
17:17:34 [ivan]: +1
17:17:35 [IanH_]: +1
17:17:35 [bijan]: +1
17:17:36 [Zhe]: +1
17:17:38 [uli]: +1
17:17:39 [Achille]: +1
17:17:40 [bcuencagrau]: +1
17:17:46 [bmotik]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-31 as withdrawn
17:17:53 [IanH_]: zakim, unmute me
17:17:53 [Zakim]: sorry, IanH_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
17:18:15 [IanH_]: I have to hang up and call in again
17:18:15 [bmotik]: Topic: Proposals to resovle issues
17:18:20 [IanH_]: can't unmute myself
17:18:25 [Zakim]: -IanH
17:18:37 [m_schnei]: q+
17:18:46 [bijan]: q-
17:18:54 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:18:54 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:18:59 [bmotik]: alanr: Ian, could you tell us how to resolve ISSUE-67?
17:19:05 [Zakim]: +IanH
17:19:14 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:19:14 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:19:19 [m_schnei]: ok
17:19:54 [bmotik]: ianh: We already decided to use owl:Axiom instead of rdf:Statement
17:20:03 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:20:03 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:20:15 [bmotik]: ianh: There has been no discussion for a long time, so it seems to me that the issue has been resolved.
17:20:31 [bmotik]: mschneider: My statement that "there is no problem" referred to something else
17:21:02 [bmotik]: mschneider: This is a question that I can't decide and I asked people at FZI
17:21:12 [bmotik]: mschenider: RDF people dislike reification
17:21:39 [bmotik]: mschneider: Feedback from FZI: There was noone in favor of reification; a few people said "either way"; a few people were against
17:21:40 [IanH_]: q+
17:21:47 [bijan]: q+
17:21:52 [bmotik]: mschneider: My proposal is to use a shadow vocabulary
17:22:12 [Zhe]: q+
17:22:13 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:22:14 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:22:14 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
17:22:14 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:22:17 [alanr]: ack m_schnei
17:22:19 [Zhe]: zakim, unmute me
17:22:19 [Zakim]: Zhe should no longer be muted
17:22:22 [alanr]: q+
17:22:22 [bmotik]: ianh: I don't have a problem with that
17:22:25 [Zakim]: -m_schnei
17:22:45 [bmotik]: ianh: I don't think it is reasonable to object to resolving issues by arguments of the sort "I don't quite like it...because?"
17:22:57 [bmotik]: ianh: Shadow vocabulary seems fine
17:23:00 [IanH_]: q?
17:23:04 [IanH_]: ack IanH
17:23:06 [alanr]: michael are you coming back on?
17:23:51 [bmotik]: alanr: Bijan, have you got a general comment?
17:24:01 [bmotik]: bparsia: I wanted to ask Michael about his polling methodology
17:24:18 [IanH_]: q?
17:24:20 [bmotik]: bparsia: We introduced vocabulary for property punning which gives additional functionality
17:24:23 [alanr]: ack bijan
17:24:24 [ivan]: ack bijan
17:24:35 [bmotik]: bparsia: We now need to introduce new vocabulary for no new functionality
17:24:54 [ivan]: ack Zhe
17:24:58 [bmotik]: Zhe: I wanted to ask whether the base triples should be included into serialization?
17:25:04 [IanH_]: q+
17:25:05 [ivan]: q+
17:25:11 [bmotik]: alanr: This is a separate issue; should go on the Issues list
17:25:31 [ivan]: ack alanr
17:25:34 [alanr]: ack alanr
17:25:35 [bmotik]: alanr: I don't think it is good to rule out the RDF shorthand
17:25:39 [alanr]: acn IanH_
17:25:43 [alanr]: ack IanH_
17:26:02 [ivan]: q-
17:26:07 [bmotik]: ianh: Let's just use the shadow vocabulary and be done with it.
17:26:15 [bmotik]: ianh: Is there any reason not to do that?
17:26:24 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl
17:26:53 [bmotik]: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary
17:26:59 [ewallace]: +1
17:27:00 [IanH_]: +1
17:27:01 [bmotik]: +1
17:27:03 [JeffP]: +0
17:27:05 [alanr]: -0
17:27:06 [Achille]: 0
17:27:20 [uli]: 0
17:27:21 [ratnesh]: 0
17:27:24 [pfps]: 0
17:27:24 [ivan]: 0
17:27:26 [Zhe]: 0
17:27:30 [bijan]: -0.00001
17:27:32 [bcuencagrau]: +1
17:27:33 [m_schnei]: +1 (FZI)
17:27:45 [bijan]: I don't like it, but I'm broken on this so don't care :)
17:27:46 [m_schnei]: sorry, my line broke down
17:27:54 [bmotik]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-67 by introducing new shadow vocabulary
17:28:13 [bmotik]: bmotik: We'll add owl:subject, owl:object, and owl:predicate
17:28:32 [bmotik]: bmotik: I'll change the spec accordingly
17:28:34 [Zakim]: +??P0
17:28:46 [m_schnei]: zakim, ??P0 is me
17:28:46 [Zakim]: +m_schnei; got it
17:28:58 [bmotik]: Topic: The state of OWL-R and OWL-R DL/Full unification
17:29:50 [alanr]: q?
17:29:58 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:29:58 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:30:12 [bmotik]: alanr: There is a proposal from Boris
17:30:15 [m_schnei]: q+
17:30:19 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:30:19 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:30:36 [bmotik]: mschneider: There is a proposal from Boris, but I don't think I understand it
17:30:55 [bmotik]: mschneider: As far as I understand, all the triple rules will remain
17:31:04 [bmotik]: mschenider: Is this still true?
17:31:06 [bmotik]: bmotik: yes
17:31:27 [bmotik]: mschneider: How do I understand on the OWL-R DL side?
17:31:42 [bmotik]: mschenider: Until now, there were two parallel specification of two langauges.
17:31:57 [bmotik]: mschneider: These two languages had not much in common
17:32:46 [bmotik]: mschneider: Is it that we'd need to parse the triples, check the syntax, and if that's accepted, then one goes to the semantics document?
17:32:47 [alanr]: q?
17:32:47 [bmotik]: q+
17:32:52 [alanr]: ack m_schnei
17:33:16 [bcuencagrau]: I can scribe
17:33:47 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: currently, we have two languages which are different
17:33:55 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: this is undesirable
17:34:18 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: the ideal situation would be to define the profiles in exactly the same way
17:34:29 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: that is, as syntactic fragments of OWL 2
17:35:11 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: an RDF graph falls within any of the fragments if it corresponfs to an ontology in the functional syntax according to the RDF mapping
17:35:25 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: the rules in OWL-R could be used directly in an implementation
17:35:35 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: no need to look at the OWl Full semantics
17:35:48 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: then, we would unify the language
17:35:59 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: Ivan has raised some objections
17:36:13 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: what if a graph does not fall within OWl R
17:36:25 [ivan]: s/OWI/OWL/
17:36:28 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: in my opinion, the user should be warned
17:36:40 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: but still the rules could be fired
17:36:57 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: but not with the guarantees that you would have within OWL-R
17:37:12 [alanr]: q?
17:37:16 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:37:31 [bmotik]: mschneider: I have no objection to this
17:37:31 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: an implementation could also apply the rules to ontologies that do not fall within OWL-R
17:37:50 [bmotik]: mschneider: The question for me is what is the DL semantics of ...
17:38:04 [bmotik]: mschneider: The current rule set has subproperty chains
17:38:21 [bmotik]: mschneider: You need to support subproperty chains
17:38:35 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: we do support subproperty
17:38:39 [bmotik]: bmotiK: I thing you are wrong
17:38:39 [bcuencagrau]: chains
17:38:40 [bmotik]: q+
17:38:49 [bmotik]: mschneider: I'll check
17:38:53 [bcuencagrau]: yes
17:38:58 [alanr]: ack bmotik
17:39:19 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: OWL-R DL mimicks everything that is in OWL-R Full
17:39:42 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: both OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full have been guided to allow for rule-based implementations
17:39:58 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: the intention was the same for both
17:40:19 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: they both should support the same, and if not it is a bug
17:40:38 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:40:38 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:40:43 [IanH_]: q?
17:40:49 [bmotik]: alanr: Could Zhe or Ivan say something?
17:40:58 [bmotik]: ivan: I'll try to summarize the discussion
17:41:10 [Zhe]: q+
17:41:17 [alanr]: q?
17:41:18 [bmotik]: ivan: I understand the whole mechanism that Boris has descirbed
17:41:19 [IanH_]: q+
17:41:28 [bmotik]: ivan: The problem is the marketing side, rather than the technical side
17:41:55 [bmotik]: ivan: If we do this way, then RDF users and implementors use a clear possibility to reference something that is clearly standardized
17:42:49 [bmotik]: ivan: The problem is that there are "almost" OWL-DL graphs, that can be managed by the rules
17:43:26 [bmotik]: ivan: I don't care whether you call this a "Profile"; however, we need a clear reference
17:43:33 [alanr]: two statements worth verification : "these are two very different languages" "there are no issues with the list vocabulary and the rules"
17:43:42 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: it is a fair summary
17:43:53 [ivan]: ack Zhe
17:44:03 [bmotik]: Zhe: I don't have too much new stuff to say
17:44:11 [bmotik]: Zhe: I'm happy with the spec as it is
17:44:30 [bmotik]: Zhe: But I can see that the unification might be good
17:44:52 [bmotik]: Zhe: I tend to agree that we need some name from a markeeting perspective
17:44:52 [ivan]: q+
17:45:14 [Achille]: +1 for ivan
17:45:23 [bmotik]: alanr: Michael said that these are two different langauges; Zhe, is this your sentiment as well?
17:45:31 [bmotik]: Zhe: I don't see them as totally different languages
17:45:46 [alanr]: q?
17:45:52 [ivan]: ack IanH_
17:45:52 [alanr]: ack IanH_
17:45:56 [bmotik]: ianh: I was quite surprised ot hear Ivan come up with the marketing argument
17:46:14 [bmotik]: ianh: The current situation actually seems pretty bad from an RDF implementation point of view
17:46:32 [bmotik]: ianh: I would imagine that many of the existing implementations basically try to implement as much of OWL Full
17:46:36 [m_schnei]: I remember that I originally saw two *very* different languages, having different language constructs, but this might have changed over time
17:46:46 [bmotik]: ianh: These implementations would become invalid OWL_R/RDF implementations
17:46:56 [pfps]: +1 to Ian's comment
17:47:03 [bmotik]: ianh: You would not be allowed to add additional rules, as you would become unsound
17:47:28 [alanr]: q?
17:47:34 [bmotik]: ianh: If we went with the current proposal, all existing rule-based implementations could say that they are valid OWL-R implementations
17:47:43 [bmotik]: ianh: This seems a big advantage for the DL community
17:48:00 [bmotik]: ianh: The name that people have for describing their system is "OWL-R".
17:48:07 [bmotik]: ianh: What is OWL-R? It is a fragment of OWL-Full.
17:48:10 [alanr]: q+
17:48:21 [IanH_]: q?
17:48:23 [bmotik]: ianh: I think that people prefer the current situation because they don't understand all the consequences of the current spec.
17:48:42 [IanH_]: q?
17:48:43 [bmotik]: ivan: The vendos usually something as PDFS++, OWL-Prime...
17:48:47 [alanr]: ack ivan
17:48:50 [IanH_]: q+
17:48:54 [bmotik]: ivan: All of the implementors implement subset of the current OWL-R.
17:49:13 [bmotik]: ivan: The message I got from people is that they'd like to say whatever they implemented is a standar
17:49:18 [bmotik]: s/standar/standard
17:49:20 [bijan]: q+
17:49:34 [bcuencagrau]: +q
17:49:48 [ivan]: ack alanr
17:49:56 [bmotik]: ivan: The problem is that there would be several OWL-R graphs that OWL-R implementations would not accept
17:49:58 [pfps]: q+ to ask how this is possible
17:50:04 [ivan]: ack IanH_
17:50:26 [bmotik]: ianh: Ivan, you said that most people implement a subset of these rules; but then, they are not OWL-R reasoners
17:50:33 [bmotik]: ivan: Yes, but they want a standard
17:50:46 [bmotik]: ianh: Most people implemented a superset, but then, they are not a standard
17:50:56 [ivan]: q+
17:51:10 [m_schnei]: since owl R has sub property chains, i very much doubt that any triple rule implementation is a superset of owl r
17:51:14 [bmotik]: ianh: Implementors usually want to implement more
17:51:30 [bmotik]: ianh: If we changed their spec, this would prevent people from implementing more
17:51:52 [bmotik]: alanr: Suppose you add a rule to OWL-R that is unsound w.r.t. OWL Full
17:52:07 [bmotik]: alanr: Would that be considered OWL-R conformant?
17:52:24 [bmotik]: alanr: The current spec is permissive in the sense that anything would be OWL-R comformant
17:52:27 [m_schnei]: q+
17:52:37 [Zhe]: which rule?
17:52:44 [pfps]: q-
17:53:26 [bmotik]: ianh: You would add as many rules as you like
17:53:28 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
17:53:28 [Zakim]: bijan was not muted, bijan
17:53:30 [ivan]: ack bijan
17:53:44 [bmotik]: bparsia: I am not as convinced by the marketing argument
17:54:06 [bmotik]: bparsia: It is imporant to focus on a subset where we can really understand what the functionality is
17:54:27 [alanr]: q?
17:54:28 [bmotik]: bparsia: We should allow people to do extensions
17:54:50 [bcuencagrau]: zakim, unmute me
17:54:50 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:54:53 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
17:54:53 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
17:54:55 [bmotik]: bparsia: It is important for the users to understand what each construct means in terms of the language
17:55:04 [alanr]: ack bcuencagrau
17:55:18 [m_schnei]: q-
17:55:28 [bmotik]: bcuencagrau: If we do this as proposed currently, you need to support at least the specified rules
17:55:28 [Zakim]: -alanr
17:55:34 [alanr]: back in a sec
17:55:47 [Zakim]: +alanr
17:55:54 [bmotik]: bcuencagrau: You could add as much as you want, you would not any semantic guarantees, but you can add it it the users really need it
17:55:56 [bmotik]: q+
17:56:13 [bmotik]: -q
17:56:14 [bcuencagrau]: zakim, mute me
17:56:14 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:56:15 [ivan]: ack ivan
17:56:33 [bmotik]: ivan: I don't understand how this all issue of extensions came into the discussions.
17:57:05 [bmotik]: ivan: According to the planned spec, there will be a set of rules, and if I just implement this set of rules and apply it to the set of graphs, then I implement not exactly OWL-R but a bit more
17:57:06 [bijan]: More than OWL-R is an extension yes?
17:57:10 [bmotik]: ivan: This is what bothers me
17:57:23 [bmotik]: ivan: I'd like to be able to say to the world what exaxctly I'm implementing
17:57:24 [m_schnei]: q+
17:57:25 [bijan]: We have a nice syntactic criterion...you handle what's in by the parser
17:57:46 [m_schnei]: zakim, unmute me
17:57:46 [Zakim]: m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:57:47 [bmotik]: ivan: I would like to signal the fact that I'm accepting more than OWL-R graphs
17:58:17 [bmotik]: mschneider: If a reasoner produces inferences that are not entailed by the languages, then the reasoner is unsoud
17:58:28 [m_schnei]: zakim, mute me
17:58:28 [Zakim]: m_schnei should now be muted
17:58:28 [bmotik]: mschneider: If a reasoner produces more than OWL-R, then the reasoner is unsound
17:58:37 [IanH_]: NOT TRUE -- because this only happens for graphs that are *outside* the syntactic fragment
17:58:57 [bmotik]: alanr: We should resume the discussion next week
17:59:02 [IanH_]: Such reasoners are SOUND for OWL-R
17:59:12 [bmotik]: Topic: Normative datatypes
17:59:19 [bmotik]: q+
17:59:25 [alanr]: ack m_schnei
17:59:26 [m_schnei]: q-
18:00:04 [pfps]: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html
18:00:35 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: proposal for datatypes
18:00:49 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: we would have numbers^+
18:01:04 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: which contains the reasl plus +inf, -inf, etc
18:01:27 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: then we would have the `numbers', which would contains the reals
18:01:37 [bcuencagrau]: scribe lost
18:01:53 [alanr]: q?
18:01:57 [alanr]: ack bmotik
18:02:16 [bcuencagrau]: sorry, I lost the thread
18:02:27 [pfps]: I think that Boris means "minimally conforming" as in the XML Schema spec
18:02:41 [bcuencagrau]: Zakim, unmute me
18:02:41 [Zakim]: bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:02:48 [pfps]: This is all in the message, so I don't think that Bernardo needs to scribe everything.
18:02:51 [IanH_]: boris: implementers discretion as to how many decimal digits to be supported
18:02:59 [bijan]: There's an email about all this
18:03:04 [bcuencagrau]: ok
18:03:22 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: all the information is in the email
18:03:28 [IanH_]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0306.html
18:04:25 [bmotik]: alanr: Evan, you had some question about the floats?
18:04:37 [bmotik]: alanr: Could you comment on that?
18:04:49 [bmotik]: evan: Are computational effects going to cause problems?
18:04:50 [bmotik]: q+
18:05:08 [alanr]: q+
18:05:09 [bmotik]: evan: Will be get ropunding problems?
18:05:42 [baojie]: baojie has joined #owl
18:05:53 [Zhe]: q+
18:05:57 [ivan]: q+
18:05:59 [alanr]: 1) Can you use float constants to specify real facets?
18:06:10 [rob]: "0.1"^^xsd.float != "0.1"^^xsd:decimal
18:06:24 [alanr]: 2) Any reason not to have base64binary with octet value space?
18:06:32 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: every constant will have a precise interpretation
18:06:44 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: floats will be interpreted as in the IEEE spec
18:07:13 [bmotik]: alanr: You could use a float contant to specify a facet on owl:real?
18:07:18 [bmotik]: bmotik: Yes, no problem.
18:07:47 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: every constant just maps to one value
18:07:51 [bmotik]: alanr: You couldn't get more precision by using extra digits?
18:08:00 [bmotik]: bmotik: No, there is no problem.
18:08:20 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: we could have it as a synonym
18:08:30 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms
18:08:30 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: value spaces will be synonyms
18:08:33 [alanr]: q?
18:08:37 [alanr]: ack bmotik
18:08:40 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:08:44 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: I didn't include it for redundancy
18:09:04 [bmotik]: Zhe: In your proposal, would the value spaces of xsd:float and xsd:double be disjoint?
18:09:08 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: no
18:09:35 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: that is Jena's problem
18:09:36 [alanr]: in that case they map to same value
18:09:45 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: you are comparing a double with a float
18:10:00 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: that could be implemented correctly
18:10:14 [ewallace]: value comparison was exactly my issue
18:10:31 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: the problem is not in the disjointness
18:11:11 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: java would map 0.1 float into a 32bit representation
18:11:27 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: it would map 0.1 double into a different number
18:11:42 [alanr]: q+
18:11:51 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: it doesn't seem to be a SPARQL problem
18:12:03 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: probably it is an RDF problem
18:12:19 [alanr]: comparison of .1d, .1f has different result in real space then when promoting to double
18:12:32 [alanr]: q?
18:12:36 [alanr]: ack Zhe
18:13:03 [Zhe]: zakim, mute me
18:13:03 [Zakim]: Zhe should now be muted
18:13:17 [Achille]: q+
18:13:29 [alanr]: ack ivan
18:13:31 [bmotik]: alanr: I think that there might be a point on the comparison of numbers
18:14:13 [bmotik]: alanr: I believe that rounding of a float to a double and then comparing it to a double is not going to give you the same thing as compariong values in the value space
18:14:53 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:14:54 [bmotik]: alanr: We are promoting to owl:number, so implementations can't use IEEE semantics
18:15:19 [bmotik]: achille: We should stay compatible with XML Schema
18:15:22 [uli]: q+
18:15:43 [alanr]: ack Achille
18:15:44 [bmotik]: achille: Why are we departing from XML Schema?
18:15:44 [uli]: zakim, ack me
18:15:45 [Zakim]: unmuting uli
18:15:45 [Zakim]: I see no one on the speaker queue
18:15:45 [bmotik]: q+
18:16:02 [bmotik]: uli: I hear all these concerns about compatibility.
18:16:23 [alanr]: q+
18:16:24 [bmotik]: uli: I'm sure that we'll be compatible with XML Schema; in fact, we won#'t be able to tell the difference
18:16:35 [bmotik]: s/won#'t/won't
18:16:41 [alanr]: ack bmotik
18:16:52 [ivan]: q+
18:16:53 [uli]: zakim, mute me
18:16:53 [Zakim]: uli should now be muted
18:16:55 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: XML Schema has benn designed for different purpuse
18:17:06 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: in OWL you can quantify over values
18:17:31 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: in XML Schema it is pointless whether a value space is continuous or not
18:17:45 [Achille]: but they also care about comparisons
18:17:47 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: in OWL we need to define behavior of data ranges during reasoning
18:17:56 [alanr]: (maybe too close ;-)
18:17:58 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: and hence go beyond XML Schema
18:18:02 [Achille]: q+
18:18:31 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: in OWL you can distinguish whether the value space is discreet or continuos
18:18:32 [bmotik]: alanr: We are almost out of time
18:18:51 [bmotik]: alanr: We should see which areas of the proposal are uncontentious
18:18:56 [alanr]: ack alanr
18:18:59 [alanr]: ack ivan
18:19:01 [bmotik]: ivan: I had two points
18:19:22 [bijan]: zakim, unmute me
18:19:22 [Zakim]: bijan should no longer be muted
18:19:24 [bcuencagrau]: bmotik: I don't know
18:19:25 [alanr]: it does say that
18:19:27 [pfps]: in XML schema double and float have disjoint values spaces
18:19:37 [rob]: they are colored differently, but defined mathematically
18:19:45 [alanr]: but they say that implementations can do cross comparisons
18:19:46 [bmotik]: ivan: Have you checked what XML Schema says about value spaces?
18:20:00 [alanr]: q?
18:20:30 [bmotik]: bparsia: 1.0 spec says that the value spaces are disjoint. 1.1 says that implementations can interpret this as they want
18:20:35 [alanr]: SPARQL would be incomplete wrt to OWL. no surprise
18:20:36 [ivan]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0223.html
18:21:04 [bmotik]: ivan: The guys who looked at the internationalize string datatype described an alternative.
18:21:34 [bmotik]: ivan: Essentially, one wants ot define a whole family of datatypes by saying that each datatype would be identified by a different URI.
18:21:40 [bmotik]: ivan: what is the relationship?
18:21:41 [alanr]: q?
18:21:42 [bijan]: That doesn't seem workable
18:21:48 [bmotik]: +1 to bijan
18:22:33 [bmotik]: Achille: I still think that XML Shema is a standard. There is clearly the need for comparing datatypes from different registries.
18:22:43 [bijan]: q+ to reply to achille
18:23:00 [bmotik]: Achille: Applications might be broken if we depart on this
18:23:12 [alanr]: ack Achille
18:23:15 [alanr]: ack bijan
18:23:15 [Zakim]: bijan, you wanted to reply to achille
18:23:18 [Zhe]: +1 to Achille
18:23:26 [bmotik]: bparsia: I've gone from both sides of the disjointness issue
18:23:35 [bmotik]: s/gone/been
18:23:43 [bmotik]: s/from/on
18:23:53 [bmotik]: bparsia: Reasoners differ on this
18:23:57 [alanr]: ditto xfunction, xquery
18:24:06 [rob]: all Cerebra's users were sensitive to it
18:24:07 [bmotik]: bparsia: It seems to me that people are not sensitive to this
18:24:12 [rob]: it was reported as a bug several times
18:24:17 [alanr]: We can cite this email stream
18:24:30 [bmotik]: bparsia: I was shocked that the XML Schema guys thought there was no problem in making them disjoint
18:24:54 [bmotik]: bparsia: I've switched from disjointness to believeing that people don't care that much about disjointness
18:25:05 [bmotik]: bparsia: We'll have to make a pick, and we'll have to pic something
18:25:05 [Achille]: We have people we have implemented it in IBM stack
18:25:17 [bmotik]: q+
18:25:19 [pfps]: I seem to remember that the disjointness in XML Schema Datatypes 1.0 was in response to an email message that I sent pointing out that, at the time, the XML Schema documents clearly stated that xsd:float and xsd:integer did *not* have disjoint value spaces.
18:25:28 [bijan]: zakim, mute me
18:25:28 [Zakim]: bijan should now be muted
18:25:32 [bmotik]: alanr: I'll try to test agreement
18:25:33 [Achille]: I will like to talk to them about their position on this issue
18:25:44 [bmotik]: alanr: owl:number(Plus) seems like a good idea
18:25:59 [bmotik]: alanr: I've heard questions from implementors regarding rationals
18:26:10 [pfps]: That's not an implementation *restriction*!
18:26:10 [bmotik]: alanr: The restrictions on integers seem uncontroversial
18:26:18 [bmotik]: alanr: Dittoxsd:decimal
18:26:26 [bmotik]: alanr: Floats seem controversial
18:26:37 [bmotik]: alanr: We need coordination regarding strings
18:27:07 [bmotik]: alanr: The empty language tag seem to address some of the problems of previous proposals
18:27:22 [bmotik]: alan: boolean, hexDecimal seem OK
18:27:31 [bmotik]: alanr: Date/time need more discussion
18:27:43 [bmotik]: alanr: It seems to me that we've made quite a lot of progress
18:27:54 [alanr]: q?
18:28:05 [bmotik]: alanr: There are not as many open issues
18:28:30 [pfps]: +1 to meet next week
18:28:32 [bmotik]: alanr: Should we have a meeting next week?
18:28:38 [bmotik]: alanr: Ian and I think yes.
18:28:44 [uli]: bye
18:28:48 [Zhe]: bye
18:28:48 [Zakim]: -uli
18:28:50 [IanH_]: I can do it
18:28:53 [Zakim]: -Zhe
18:29:02 [IanH_]: I know it very well!
18:29:12 [bmotik]: alanr: Please send an e-mail about it.
18:29:15 [Zakim]: -bcuencagrau
18:29:16 [Zakim]: -alanr
18:29:17 [Zakim]: -Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:29:17 [ratnesh]: bye
18:29:18 [Zakim]: -Evan_Wallace
18:29:18 [Zakim]: -bmotik
18:29:19 [Zakim]: -ratnesh
18:29:20 [Zakim]: -bijan
18:29:22 [Zakim]: -rob
18:29:26 [Zakim]: -IanH_
18:29:30 [Zakim]: -m_schnei
18:30:14 [ewallace]: rrsagent, draft minutes
18:30:14 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/16-owl-minutes.html ewallace
18:30:36 [ewallace]: rrsagent, mak log world-readable
18:30:36 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'mak log world-readable', ewallace. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:30:52 [ewallace]: rrsagent, make log world-readable
18:33:12 [Zakim]: -Achille
18:38:13 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, Ivan, in SW_OWL()12:00PM
18:38:15 [Zakim]: SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:38:16 [Zakim]: Attendees were rob, uli, alanr, bmotik, bcuencagrau, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, Zhe, bijan, ratnesh, Achille, Evan_Wallace, m_schnei, IanH_
19:37:23 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl
20:36:50 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #owl
21:19:50 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl
21:42:31 [m_schnei]: m_schnei has joined #owl