16:59:53 RRSAgent has joined #owl 16:59:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/23-owl-irc 17:00:08 msmith has joined #owl 17:00:19 zakim, this will be owlwg 17:00:20 ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start now 17:00:25 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:00:32 +??P15 17:00:34 +Zhe 17:00:38 zkaim, ??p15 is me 17:00:41 IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.07.23/Agenda 17:00:45 zakim, mute me 17:00:45 sorry, bparsia, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 17:00:57 Zhe has joined #owl 17:01:01 Achille has joined #owl 17:01:06 zakim, ??p15 is bparsia 17:01:06 +bparsia; got it 17:01:15 zakim, mute me 17:01:15 bparsia should now be muted 17:01:25 +IanH_ 17:01:25 zakim, dial ivan-voip 17:01:26 -Zhe 17:01:26 ok, ivan; the call is being made 17:01:27 +Ivan 17:01:39 zakim IanH_ is IanH 17:01:41 +??P24 17:01:45 +[IBM] 17:01:51 zakim, ??P24 is me 17:01:51 +uli; got it 17:01:56 zakim, mute me 17:01:56 uli should now be muted 17:01:59 zakim, IanH_ is IanH 17:01:59 +IanH; got it 17:02:04 +alanr 17:02:07 +Zhe 17:02:17 zakim, mute me 17:02:17 Zhe should now be muted 17:02:21 alanr has joined #owl 17:02:29 zakim, who is here? 17:02:29 On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan, uli (muted), [IBM], alanr, Zhe (muted) 17:02:31 On IRC I see alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot 17:02:32 Zakim, IBM is me 17:02:32 +Achille; got it 17:02:48 sandro has joined #owl 17:02:56 +Sandro 17:02:59 zakim, mute me 17:02:59 Ivan should now be muted 17:03:04 +msmith 17:03:07 RRSAgent, make records public 17:03:12 rob has joined #owl 17:04:06 +??P40 17:04:15 yes 17:04:18 zakim, who is here? 17:04:18 On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, alanr, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, ??P40 17:04:21 On IRC I see rob, sandro, alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot 17:04:35 Zakim, +??P40 is probably me. 17:04:41 sorry, rob, I do not understand your question 17:04:48 baojie has joined #owl 17:04:55 zakim, +??P40 might be me 17:05:08 I don't understand '+??P40 might be me', rob 17:05:13 zakim, ??P40 is rob 17:05:17 bmotik has joined #owl 17:05:18 +rob; got it 17:05:45 zakim, mute me 17:05:45 rob should now be muted 17:05:46 They looked OK to me. 17:05:59 alanr: no agenda amendments 17:06:07 the regrets are missing 17:06:12 They looked OK to me too 17:06:25 bmotik_ has joined #owl 17:06:39 ewallace has joined #owl 17:06:42 alanr: let's wait for peter 17:06:48 for the minutes 17:06:48 Zakim. bmotik_ is bmotik 17:07:03 zakim, bmotik_ is bmotik 17:07:03 sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'bmotik_' 17:07:04 alanr: there is an agenda for f2f 3 17:07:24 alanr: anything missing from the agenda for the f2f3? 17:07:27 +Evan_Wallace 17:07:31 Rinke has joined #owl 17:07:37 topic: action items 17:08:05 alanr : action 156 done by ian 17:08:28 +Carsten 17:08:36 zakim, mute me 17:08:36 Carsten should now be muted 17:08:49 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0375.html 17:08:50 ewallace: action 167 done 17:09:20 zakim, who is here 17:09:20 rob, you need to end that query with '?' 17:09:26 jie: i just sent an email summarizing the action at the last meeting of RIF WG 17:09:27 +??P3 17:09:30 zakim, who is here? 17:09:30 On the phone I see bparsia (muted), IanH (muted), Ivan (muted), uli (muted), Achille, alanr, Zhe (muted), Sandro, msmith, rob (muted), baojie, Evan_Wallace, Carsten (muted), ??P3 17:09:32 zakim, ??P3 is me 17:09:34 On IRC I see Rinke, ewallace, bmotik, baojie, rob, sandro, alanr, Achille, Zhe, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, ivan, uli, bparsia, Carsten, trackbot 17:09:35 zakim, mute me 17:09:36 +Rinke; got it 17:09:36 Rinke should now be muted 17:10:09 alanr: what is your sense of the status for the RIF WG 17:10:34 jie: as far as this action is concerned it is well on tracj 17:10:43 s/tracj/track 17:11:15 alanr: micheal is not here for action 152 17:11:27 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F3_People 17:11:33 Zakim, bmotik is with Achille 17:11:33 +bmotik; got it 17:11:35 q? 17:11:36 sandro: add food restriction on the f2f 3 page 17:11:55 topic: proposal to resolve issue 17:12:28 doing it 17:12:56 alanr: issue 125 shuld be left for the primer not the technical documents 17:13:01 q+ 17:13:07 zakim, unmute me 17:13:07 bparsia should no longer be muted 17:13:10 ack bparsia 17:13:13 Elisa has joined #owl 17:14:20 bparsia: I think it should be just an editorial issue 17:14:30 PROPOSED: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents 17:14:49 bparsia: I don;t like the micro management of this issue 17:14:54 zakim, unmute me 17:14:54 IanH should no longer be muted 17:14:59 q? 17:15:27 No! 17:15:45 ianh: I made the proposal as an easy way to fix the issue. Bijan would you prefer changing the serializarion 17:15:49 +1 to close 17:15:54 q? 17:15:55 bijan: no 17:15:58 zakim, mute me 17:15:58 bparsia should now be muted 17:16:14 alanr: any opinion on htis issue? 17:16:16 q+ 17:16:21 ack bmotik 17:16:41 boris: in the syntax doc, I have already mentioned some equivalences 17:16:53 boris: this could be just one more line 17:17:02 I'm not saying I wouldn't put it in, but I think we should just close it 17:17:05 boris: I would like to close it 17:17:06 I don't care 17:17:08 Close it 17:17:09 however 17:17:16 boris: by adding it in the syntax document 17:17:19 zakim, unmute me 17:17:19 bparsia should no longer be muted 17:17:40 zakim, mute me 17:17:40 bparsia should now be muted 17:17:53 parsia: I'm not going to argue further. I will not vote against it 17:18:02 Proposed: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents 17:18:08 +1 17:18:10 +1 17:18:11 +1 17:18:15 +1 17:18:15 +1 17:18:17 +1 17:18:17 +1 17:18:17 +1 17:18:23 +1 17:18:26 +1 17:18:29 +1 17:18:47 +1 17:18:48 scribenick: Achille 17:18:55 scribe: Achille 17:19:20 Resolved: resolve issue with no change to serialisation but document this and other "interesting" equivalences in user facing documents 17:19:31 topic: issue discussion 17:19:51 zakim, mute me 17:19:51 bparsia was already muted, bparsia 17:20:03 alanr: discussion on bijan's email on option for N-ary datatype 17:20:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0047.html 17:20:46 alanr: what should be our direction for N-ary datatype support 17:20:48 That was not included 17:21:07 q? 17:21:08 alanr: I 'd like to add an option : "not to include N-ary datatype at all" 17:21:26 I suspect manchester would object if we not included the base hook 17:21:42 alanr: what do implements think about N-ary datatype? 17:21:55 q+ 17:22:13 q+ 17:22:14 Achille: I don't think we have a good stor whether we are going to implement this feature 17:22:24 Achille: The implementation is done by our colleagues in China 17:22:35 Achille: This doesn't seem as something that they'll implement soon 17:22:48 Achille: It is quite complex and we haven't a clear path towards the implementation 17:22:50 zakim, unmute me 17:22:50 rob should no longer be muted 17:22:51 ack rob 17:23:16 rob: the usecase are not convincing 17:23:20 q+ 17:23:25 rob: it is a low priority 17:23:36 rob: I do not particularly care 17:23:38 +Elisa_Kendall 17:23:40 ack msmith 17:23:41 zakim, mute me 17:23:42 rob should now be muted 17:23:42 More details on the use cases are coming; I've had meetings with various people and some examples 17:24:01 q+ 17:24:03 mike: from customer we hear that it is interesting 17:24:12 ack bmotik 17:24:17 mike: it is a gap that i would like to close 17:24:34 boris: I have the feeling that this will be hard 17:24:41 ack uli 17:24:46 boris: I'm not convince of the usefulness 17:24:52 zakim, unmute me 17:24:52 uli was not muted, uli 17:25:00 uli: two things 17:25:16 uli: various kinds of N-ary 17:25:35 uli: linear ineq vs simpler ... 17:25:47 uli: I would report from racer 17:25:59 q+ 17:26:00 uli: they did it because of customer;s requirements 17:26:09 where "simpler" is comparison operators only 17:26:15 s/customer;s/customer's 17:26:20 zakim, mute me 17:26:20 uli should now be muted 17:26:20 ack rob 17:26:21 zakim, unmute me 17:26:21 uli: they found it usefull and not very hard in practice 17:26:23 rob was not muted, rob 17:26:34 s/customer's/customers' 17:26:41 rob: where are the success stories? 17:26:48 zakim, unmute me 17:26:48 uli should no longer be muted 17:26:56 q+ 17:26:58 YES 17:27:14 zakim, mute me 17:27:14 rob should now be muted 17:27:15 uli: I'll go back to racer folks to gather more info 17:27:16 zakim, unmute me 17:27:16 Carsten should no longer be muted 17:27:29 zakim, unmute me 17:27:29 rob should no longer be muted 17:27:39 carsten: they consider it very important 17:27:51 q? 17:28:03 zakim, mute me 17:28:03 rob should now be muted 17:28:04 use cases from Product Modeling XG as well 17:28:10 zakim, mute me 17:28:10 uli should now be muted 17:28:12 zakim, mute me 17:28:12 Carsten should now be muted 17:28:15 zakim, unmute me 17:28:15 bparsia should no longer be muted 17:28:15 carsten: disagree on the lack of success stories 17:28:16 ack bparsia 17:28:24 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_use_case 17:28:57 bparsia: I spent some time with Robert Stevens, Alan R. to push for more examples 17:29:06 R = Rector 17:29:50 bparsia: even with the simple example (which could be handle fby DL safe rule) , they want N-Arydatatype 17:30:25 but what do you expect to infer? 17:30:25 bparsia : this is particularly important for develop time 17:30:30 q+ 17:30:45 Sure this simple. There are tons of other features in OWL without *sophisticated* use cases 17:30:52 bparsia: the way it is done now is true precomputation 17:31:09 q? 17:31:11 bparsia: it does not work very well 17:31:53 bparsia: the owl model becomes to complex in order to get his requirements in 17:32:03 s/to/too 17:32:18 bparsia: I'll send around his ontology soon 17:32:25 q+ to ask whether conversations prioritize level? 17:32:30 ack bmotik 17:32:38 bparsia: I was convinced by his use case 17:32:44 zakim, mute me 17:32:44 bparsia should now be muted 17:33:08 boris: we are not making progress by discussing what is the right use case 17:33:34 q+ 17:33:46 boris: if we provide a hook to allow implementation to plug their own datatype 17:34:09 boris: it solves the problem and gives flexibility to implementors 17:34:30 boris: I understand that there are some issues related to interoperability 17:35:17 q+ 17:35:17 alanr: my sense is that in OWL 1.0 was that there was no benefit with hook in the spec for datatype 17:36:02 alanr: so I advocate not have N-ary datatype in the spec, but leave them as extensions 17:36:06 zakim, unmute me 17:36:06 bparsia should no longer be muted 17:36:25 alanr: Bijan could you live without equation? Just comparison 17:36:26 q? 17:36:33 ack alanr 17:36:33 alanr, you wanted to ask whether conversations prioritize level? 17:36:39 bijan: comparisons would be better than nothing 17:36:50 ack bparsia 17:37:13 bparsia: there is already an implementation of linear 17:37:30 bparsia: pellet intends to have something in the space 17:37:50 bparsia: so about 3 implementations will be available, and we can test interop 17:38:17 bparsia: implementation should be encouraged - let's not raise the bar for implementation 17:38:30 achille - record the 3 implementations? 17:38:52 pellet, racer , I dd not get the 3rd 17:39:14 fact++ 17:39:14 so ... Bijan is talking about an optional component of some sort ... something "standard" but not required in any profile. Interesting. 17:39:16 +Jonathan_Rees 17:39:27 zakim, Jonathan_Rees is alanr 17:39:27 +alanr; got it 17:39:51 bparsia: we should not worry too much about it before last call 17:39:54 zakim, mute me 17:39:54 bparsia should now be muted 17:40:16 q? 17:41:12 I didn't see use cases where you get anything terribly useful as a result of implementing it. 17:41:24 rob, which "it" 17:41:24 -alanr 17:41:33 msmith: it seems to me that some people are not implementing N-ary because the trade off bt easy of implementation/ usefulness is not in favor of implementation 17:41:35 n-ary datatypes of any kind. 17:41:42 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_use_case 17:41:45 rob, thanks 17:41:45 s/easy/ease 17:42:24 topic: let's postpone issue 133 for when diego is around 17:42:48 q? 17:42:52 ack msmith 17:42:52 topic: Issue 87: rational datatype 17:43:11 q+ 17:43:30 Achille: I haven't paid much attention to this proposal. 17:43:46 Achille: We haven't seen a use case. 17:43:49 ack rob 17:43:50 zakim, unmute me 17:43:52 rob was not muted, rob 17:43:55 q? 17:44:08 q+ 17:44:23 q+ to clarify what we're talking about 17:44:46 rob: allowing constant as rational would not change the semantics at all 17:44:53 q+ 17:45:03 rob: if it is not in the XML schema so maybe it is not important 17:45:25 rob: defining rational as a value space seems insane 17:45:41 q+ 17:45:46 ack Achille 17:45:49 zakim, mute me 17:45:49 rob should now be muted 17:46:00 Achille: We care a lot about XML Schema. 17:46:31 ack msmith 17:46:31 msmith, you wanted to clarify what we're talking about 17:46:37 Achille: We are not entusiastic about rational numbers because they depart from XML SChema. 17:47:25 zakim, unmute me 17:47:25 uli should no longer be muted 17:47:25 ack uli 17:47:43 http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/1006 17:47:51 uli: I agree with mike that nobody even suggested a rational value space 17:47:53 (for a critique of thelack of rationals in xml schema) 17:48:18 uli: having rational constants could be very useful if we have comparisons 17:48:49 if you have that stuff then you have an implicit encoding for them, anyway 17:48:50 ack me 17:48:56 uli: it could be useful in the context of comparisons 17:49:02 ack bparsia 17:49:08 zakim, mute me 17:49:08 uli should now be muted 17:49:19 bparsia: I do not want to solve equation in rational, but in reals 17:49:29 zakim, muteme 17:49:29 I don't understand 'muteme', bparsia 17:49:34 zakim, mute me 17:49:34 bparsia should now be muted 17:50:01 Rational constants are much less serious than having a real value space, for sure 17:50:07 topic : General Discussion 17:50:55 alanr: I addressed the error caught by peter on annotation proposal 17:51:16 q+ to explain bundles 17:51:19 q? 17:51:22 zakim, umute me 17:51:22 I don't understand 'umute me', bparsia 17:51:27 ack bparsia 17:51:28 bparsia, you wanted to explain bundles 17:51:33 alanr: we could start by some evaluation about if the proposal works and what to do if it does not 17:51:46 -rob 17:52:15 alanr: I thought that you had a name for an axiom 17:52:34 alanr: which means that you can have as many statement about the axiom 17:52:48 q? 17:52:53 bijan: we do not want people to coin name for all axioms 17:53:06 bijan: it has to be done by the implementation 17:53:17 q? 17:53:22 alanr: I believe my proposal achieve the same goal 17:53:33 bijan: that's orthorgonal to space 17:53:43 alanr: this proposal does not have spaces 17:53:44 q+ 17:53:49 ack msmith 17:54:03 alanr: if there is a strong desire for spaces we can add it later 17:54:19 mike: only one level of annotation? 17:54:33 alanr: yes, for now only one level of annotations 17:54:35 q? 17:54:57 zakim, unmute me 17:54:57 bparsia was not muted, bparsia 17:55:07 alanr: what is your sense about the effectiveness of this approach? 17:55:18 bparsia: I do not know yet 17:55:54 alanr: peter has a strong concern about the idea of having two files 17:56:07 bijan: I agree with peter 17:56:37 q+ 17:56:42 zakim, unmute me 17:56:42 IanH should no longer be muted 17:56:46 bparsia: People are in general opposed to multiple file solutions. It is a non-starter 17:57:12 alanr: the main reason to having them in separate files 17:57:29 alanr: is to facilitate SPARQL queries 17:57:43 q? 17:58:01 bparsia: it is not substantially easier with multiple file solution 17:58:30 ianh: I agree with bijan. I remember similar issues raising in the context of DAML/OIL 17:59:01 Achille: I'm on the same page as Bijan. 17:59:27 Boris: I have not been able to see the proposal 17:59:41 Boris: I would prefer a single file in general 18:00:35 alanr: we need bijan and boris to have a close look at the proposal 18:00:55 bparsia: you should also contact Deborah 18:01:05 action: bparsia to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 18:01:05 Sorry, couldn't find user - bparsia 18:01:15 bparsia: she was interested in the issue 18:01:24 action: bmotik to analyze and comment on Annotation_System_2 18:01:24 Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik 18:01:45 action: alanr to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations. 18:01:45 Sorry, couldn't find user - alanr 18:02:30 topic: issue 16 18:02:38 q? 18:02:44 ack Ianh 18:02:53 alanr: we should not discuss this issue since it is subsumed by rich annotation 18:03:12 topic: issues of time and date related datatypes 18:03:16 action: alan to ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations 18:03:16 Created ACTION-169 - Ask Deb about nesting level of annotations on annotations [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-07-30]. 18:03:20 q? 18:03:25 q+ 18:03:29