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
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:01:09 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:01:14 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:02:01 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to:
17:02:02 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:03:31 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:03:31 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:03:50 [bmotik]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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:
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]
17:13:31 [alanr]
ack ivan
17:13:32 [ivan]
ack ivan
17:13:34 [bijan]
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]
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]
17:17:29 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
17:17:30 [alanr]
17:17:32 [bijan]
17:17:33 [pfps]
17:17:34 [bmotik]
17:17:34 [ivan]
17:17:35 [IanH_]
17:17:35 [bijan]
17:17:36 [Zhe]
17:17:38 [uli]
17:17:39 [Achille]
17:17:40 [bcuencagrau]
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]
17:18:37 [m_schnei]
17:18:46 [bijan]
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]
17:19:14 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:19:14 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:19:19 [m_schnei]
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_]
17:21:47 [bijan]
17:21:52 [bmotik]
mschneider: My proposal is to use a shadow vocabulary
17:22:12 [Zhe]
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]
17:22:22 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't have a problem with that
17:22:25 [Zakim]
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_]
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_]
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_]
17:25:05 [ivan]
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]
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]
17:27:00 [IanH_]
17:27:01 [bmotik]
17:27:03 [JeffP]
17:27:05 [alanr]
17:27:06 [Achille]
17:27:20 [uli]
17:27:21 [ratnesh]
17:27:24 [pfps]
17:27:24 [ivan]
17:27:26 [Zhe]
17:27:30 [bijan]
17:27:32 [bcuencagrau]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:32:47 [bmotik]
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]
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]
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]
17:38:40 [bmotik]
17:38:49 [bmotik]
mschneider: I'll check
17:38:53 [bcuencagrau]
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_]
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]
17:41:17 [alanr]
17:41:18 [bmotik]
ivan: I understand the whole mechanism that Boris has descirbed
17:41:19 [IanH_]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:48:21 [IanH_]
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_]
17:48:43 [bmotik]
ivan: The vendos usually something as PDFS++, OWL-Prime...
17:48:47 [alanr]
ack ivan
17:48:50 [IanH_]
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]
17:49:20 [bijan]
17:49:34 [bcuencagrau]
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]
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]
17:52:37 [Zhe]
which rule?
17:52:44 [pfps]
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]
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]
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]
17:55:34 [alanr]
back in a sec
17:55:47 [Zakim]
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]
17:56:13 [bmotik]
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]
17:57:25 [bijan]
We have a nice syntactic 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]
17:59:25 [alanr]
ack m_schnei
17:59:26 [m_schnei]
18:00:04 [pfps]
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]
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]
18:03:22 [bcuencagrau]
bmotik: all the information is in the email
18:03:28 [IanH_]
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]
18:05:08 [alanr]
18:05:09 [bmotik]
evan: Will be get ropunding problems?
18:05:42 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
18:05:53 [Zhe]
18:05:57 [ivan]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18:16:02 [bmotik]
uli: I hear all these concerns about compatibility.
18:16:23 [alanr]
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]
18:16:41 [alanr]
ack bmotik
18:16:52 [ivan]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
18:23:43 [bmotik]
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]
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]
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]
18:28:48 [Zhe]
18:28:48 [Zakim]
18:28:50 [IanH_]
I can do it
18:28:53 [Zakim]
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]
18:29:16 [Zakim]
18:29:17 [Zakim]
18:29:17 [ratnesh]
18:29:18 [Zakim]
18:29:18 [Zakim]
18:29:19 [Zakim]
18:29:20 [Zakim]
18:29:22 [Zakim]
18:29:26 [Zakim]
18:29:30 [Zakim]
18:30:14 [ewallace]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:30:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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]
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