IRC log of owl on 2008-08-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:52:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:52:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:52:42 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to:
16:52:55 [IanH]
Zakim, this will be owlwg
16:52:55 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
16:53:23 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
16:55:18 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:56:07 [ratnesh]
ratnesh has joined #owl
16:56:26 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
16:56:33 [Zakim]
16:56:45 [Zakim]
16:57:11 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
16:57:11 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
16:57:46 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
16:58:37 [IanH]
ScribeNick: bcuencagrau
16:58:47 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
16:58:47 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
16:59:29 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [ratnesh]
Zakim, ??P20 is me
16:59:46 [Zakim]
+ratnesh; got it
16:59:50 [Zakim]
17:00:13 [Zakim]
17:01:13 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
17:01:16 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:01:28 [IanH]
I should have said not too many important people here yet ;-)
17:01:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aaaa
17:02:00 [Zakim]
17:02:25 [Achille]
Zakim, ibm is Achille
17:02:25 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:02:26 [IanH]
zakim [IBM] is Achille
17:02:35 [Zakim]
17:02:39 [Rinke]
zakim, +??P4 is me
17:02:39 [Zakim]
sorry, Rinke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P4'
17:02:54 [Rinke]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:02:54 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:02:57 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:02:57 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:03:02 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:03:15 [bcuencagrau]
Ianh: start with administration issues
17:03:30 [pfps]
looks fine to me
17:03:30 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aabb
17:03:37 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Approval of minutes from last week
17:03:40 [Rinke]
look fine to me as well
17:03:42 [Zhe]
zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me
17:03:42 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:03:51 [Zhe]
zakim, unmute me
17:03:51 [Zakim]
Zhe was not muted, Zhe
17:03:51 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: minutes from last week approved
17:03:56 [pfps]
look OK
17:03:58 [Rinke]
they look ok
17:04:01 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: What about F2F minutes?
17:04:04 [Achille]
+1 for the f2f
17:04:06 [Zhe]
zakim, mute me
17:04:06 [Zakim]
Zhe should now be muted
17:04:11 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Minutes approved
17:04:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aacc
17:04:24 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:04:34 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Action items
17:04:46 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: First action is due to Boris
17:04:52 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Boris is not here
17:05:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Pass over this one
17:05:18 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc
17:05:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:05:35 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Sandro is on vacation, so we pass over the second issue
17:05:37 [pfps]
Sandro did his action
17:05:40 [Zakim]
17:05:44 [Rinke]
Boris says "2008-07-29 15:35:08: This action seems moot to me given the discussion about annotations that we had at the 3F2F. [Boris Motik]" in the notes of Action-171
17:05:48 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Jie completed his action
17:05:49 [JeffP]
zakim, qreul is me
17:05:49 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
17:05:59 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Sandro also did his action
17:06:33 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:06:34 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: issues with datatypes
17:06:43 [msmith]
requirement *with* timezone
17:06:57 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: in particular how day and time should work
17:07:03 [Zakim]
17:07:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, ??P15 is me
17:07:15 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:07:20 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: XML Schema datatypes have a strange notion of identity
17:07:20 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:07:20 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:07:24 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:07:43 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I do not see the problem. We are just saying that we are not considering time without time zones
17:07:51 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: applications could still do otherwise
17:08:12 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: I guess this would solve the problem
17:08:15 [Zakim]
17:08:37 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should still comment that XML Schema allowing for time without time zone is strange
17:09:09 [pfps]
the problem is really that a missing timezone is a *value* not something missing
17:09:20 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: suggest that peter sends his comments on behalf of the working group
17:09:40 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we should decide that next week
17:09:50 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: due and overdue actions
17:09:53 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:09:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, msmith, Achille, Rinke (muted), Zhe (muted), +1.518.276.aacc, JeffP, m_schnei
17:09:56 [Zakim]
... (muted), Evan_Wallace
17:09:57 [IanH]
17:09:57 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: First one from Diego
17:09:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ewallace, m_schnei, JeffP, Zhe, Achille, msmith, MarkusK, ratnesh, bcuencagrau, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, baojie, pfps, Rinke, sandro, trackbot
17:10:35 [IanH]
zakim, aacc is baojie
17:10:35 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:10:50 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Diego is not here
17:10:58 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Jie also had an action
17:11:13 [bcuencagrau]
baoJie: this is in progress
17:11:20 [bcuencagrau]
baoJie: maybe next week
17:11:43 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: let's push it forward two weeks
17:12:02 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Bijan had another issue, but he is not on the call
17:12:17 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Alan's action is done
17:12:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Action 168, Bijan is not on the call
17:12:37 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:12:37 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:12:55 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Next two ones are also assigned to people who are not in the call
17:13:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: next is due to michael schneider
17:13:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: this action will be pushed for a week
17:13:29 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:13:29 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:13:41 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: done with admin stuff
17:13:41 [pfps]
is alan's action done? where is the email exchange?
17:14:00 [IanH]
17:14:00 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should summarize the discussions from the F2F
17:14:06 [pfps]
17:14:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Alan is on holiday, but he did contact Deb and got a response
17:14:29 [pfps]
if we haven't seen the exchange, then the action isn't done
17:15:13 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Summary of the outcomes from the F2F
17:15:48 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: First thing. Datatypes
17:16:07 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we agreed on resolving on going with the email that Boris sent
17:16:29 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we decided to have float and double as having discreat points
17:16:42 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: It turns out it is not difficult to implement
17:16:56 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: We postponed the issue with rationals and n-ary
17:17:13 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we discussed about day and time and agree to align with XML Schema
17:17:20 [IanH]
17:17:25 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: anyone disagreeing?
17:17:31 [Achille]
+1 for ianh summary
17:17:40 [msmith]
+1 to summary
17:17:41 [Rinke]
+1 happy
17:17:43 [Zhe]
17:17:45 [baojie]
17:17:52 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: people are happy
17:18:15 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Second, structural equivalence of literals based on syntactic form
17:18:41 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We do not consider if they are semantically equivalent
17:18:59 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: then, annotations. This is postponed pending on details about rich annotations
17:19:09 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Still a lot to say about that
17:19:36 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: profiles. We got the proposal to resolve
17:19:49 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: Unification of OWL R flavour
17:19:57 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: no unanimous approval
17:20:23 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: OWL Full
17:20:55 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we can signal OWL Full sometimes without having an explicit annotation
17:20:59 [IanH]
17:21:04 [Rinke]
I think it's really hacky
17:21:11 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Example <sameAs sameAs sameAs>
17:21:30 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: agreed that it is Hacky but it avoids some problem
17:21:31 [pfps]
... but it's a *neat* hack (at least so far as RDF goes)
17:21:31 [msmith]
17:21:34 [m_schnei]
17:21:38 [Rinke]
zakim, unmute me
17:21:38 [Zakim]
Rinke should no longer be muted
17:21:41 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:21:41 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:21:49 [Rinke]
zakim, mute me
17:21:49 [Zakim]
Rinke should now be muted
17:21:50 [IanH]
17:22:02 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:22:04 [bcuencagrau]
Michael, i cannot hear you
17:22:14 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
17:22:14 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:22:47 [ewallace]
no better
17:22:54 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:22:54 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:23:51 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: I do not think that the olution has a practical value
17:23:56 [msmith]
+1 to m_schnei. if an ontology is otherwise syntactically DL its difficult to understand why someone would express a full intent
17:24:02 [IanH]
17:24:07 [pfps]
17:24:08 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: people writing an OWL Full ontology would never write such a triple
17:24:21 [IanH]
17:24:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we should put this a s a suggestion, rather than as a requirement
17:24:32 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:24:32 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:24:51 [ewallace]
It doesn't hurt to suggest it, if people care.
17:24:51 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: people will hardly ever do it
17:25:17 [m_schnei]
alternative would be, DL authors write NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) ;-)
17:25:22 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we can resolve the issue by putting this as a suggestion
17:25:33 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: everyone happy?
17:25:34 [ewallace]
17:25:35 [pfps]
17:25:35 [MarkusK]
+1 to Ians suggestions
17:25:37 [bcuencagrau]
17:25:47 [ratnesh]
17:25:47 [Rinke]
17:25:53 [m_schnei]
+1 to suggestion
17:25:56 [baojie]
17:26:14 [IanH]
Strawpoll: Resolve issue by suggesting this triple be added by any users who want to *insist* on being an OWL Full ontology
17:26:16 [pfps]
+1 to strawpoll
17:26:19 [m_schnei]
(but we could even opt to say nothing about it at all)
17:26:21 [bcuencagrau]
17:26:22 [MarkusK]
17:26:23 [msmith]
+1, noting that this might be used in the test suite as well
17:26:24 [Zhe]
17:26:25 [JeffP]
17:26:28 [IanH]
17:26:28 [Achille]
17:27:04 [msmith]
and NegativePropertyAssertion(sameAs sameAs sameAs) isn't really syntactically DL :)
17:27:11 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: now we can respond to Sandro, who raised the issue
17:27:23 [Rinke]
17:28:00 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I will come up with a proposal to resolve thi issue
17:28:10 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: this is all about profiles
17:28:19 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We also discussed n-ary
17:28:37 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Bijan should provide a more flashed-out specification
17:28:51 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: Then, we should decide what part of it should go in the spec
17:29:03 [IanH]
17:29:08 [pfps]
17:29:26 [Achille]
+1 for the summary
17:29:53 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: OWL Full. Michael has come up with a draft of the OWL Full semantics
17:30:06 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: the doc will be reviewed by the end of August
17:30:14 [IanH]
17:30:17 [m_schnei]
Full editor's draft (work in progress) <>
17:30:43 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: There was a MOF metamodel presented at the F2F
17:31:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: it is basically similar to what we have in the syntax document, but using the formal MOF syntax
17:31:31 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: The main advantage is that it is good to have it in MOF syntax and use MOF tools#
17:31:46 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Lots of emails about thia
17:32:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: some people are confused about the relation between this syntax and other syntaxes
17:32:12 [IanH]
17:32:22 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we can probably briefly discuss this
17:32:31 [ewallace]
and conrad bock of NIST
17:33:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Michael, are you happy about this issue?
17:33:12 [IanH]
17:33:23 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: seems that Michael is gone
17:33:57 [bcuencagrau]
Ewallace: i did not work on the metamodel, but I helped raising the issue
17:34:09 [bcuencagrau]
ewallace: I thought Conrad would come today
17:34:15 [Zhe1]
Zhe1 has joined #owl
17:34:25 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: User-faced docs
17:34:41 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: not much to say about them because they are at an early stage
17:34:57 [m_schnei]
ian, at F2F3 we have settled to say "mike" for msmith, and "michael" for m_schnei :)
17:35:22 [IanH]
17:35:29 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: They are going to come back with a doc by early september
17:35:40 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: the requirements doc is in better shape
17:35:51 [ewallace]
Most of the work on the req's doc is to slim it down.
17:36:01 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: quite long, the authors are trying to make it shorter and compact
17:36:12 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: anything to add?
17:36:28 [JeffP]
17:36:31 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Test cases
17:36:34 [ewallace]
In agreement
17:36:50 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Some progress has benn made
17:36:56 [MarkusK]
right, the wiki will be ready soon, W3C says
17:37:04 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: in a couple of weeks there should be more test cases into the wiki
17:37:17 [IanH]
17:37:18 [msmith]
Encourage anyone that wants to create a test case to look at
17:37:22 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we should include tests for the profiles
17:37:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: any comments?
17:37:46 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: people can already create test cases
17:38:14 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we should encourage everyone to write tests
17:38:20 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Manchester syntax?
17:38:41 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: we agreed for it not to be rec. track, but possibly as a note
17:38:52 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Alan raised some concerns
17:38:58 [pfps]
the document is at
17:39:39 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Last thing: publication schedule
17:39:49 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: we are currently behind schedule
17:40:06 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should really move on and finalize some of the docs
17:40:19 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should be getting them towards Last Call
17:40:29 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: This should happen by the next F2F
17:40:47 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: now the documents should be reviewed
17:41:30 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We agreed that the core docs have changed quite a lot
17:41:37 [m_schnei]
17:41:42 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:41:42 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:41:43 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: We could probably publish them again by September
17:41:45 [IanH]
17:41:47 [pfps]
I thought that we had agreed to publish the whole core.
17:41:51 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:42:04 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
17:42:04 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
17:42:04 [pfps]
... precisely because of Michael's argument.
17:42:16 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
17:42:16 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
17:42:51 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: there was an argument to publish them all together because they depend on each other
17:42:59 [IanH]
17:43:06 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: they should be ready simultaneously
17:43:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:43:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:43:44 [msmith]
17:43:49 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: So, we decided to publish the new versions of the Working Drafts in September
17:44:00 [bcuencagrau]
ianH: We are now looking for reviewers
17:44:05 [IanH]
17:44:19 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: the documents should be published simultanuously, since they are dependent on each other.
17:44:59 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: if you change e.g. the functional syntax, then the RDF mapping, the DL semantics, the XML syntax, and perhaps the primer has to be changed too
17:45:03 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: The RDF-based semantics is the only doc. for which we have 3 reviewers
17:45:14 [Rinke]
I guess I could review the XML Serialization
17:45:16 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: the other docs need reviewing
17:45:27 [Rinke]
17:45:31 [JeffP]
I could review the profile doc
17:45:31 [MarkusK]
I will have a look at the Semantics
17:45:44 [Achille]
Profile and serialization
17:45:54 [MarkusK]
yes, model theoretic
17:46:09 [Achille]
XML serialization
17:46:19 [bcuencagrau]
Achille: I will review XML Serialization
17:46:33 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We need someone else to review the Syntax
17:46:53 [Rinke]
It's a big document
17:47:09 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We could split the doc
17:47:18 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I will send another email around
17:47:42 [bcuencagrau]
IanH; This is all about F2F
17:47:46 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: now, the issues
17:47:54 [IanH]
17:48:02 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Issue 108, we have a proposal to resolve
17:48:35 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: We would like to get the profiles doc published but there are some issues to address
17:48:47 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: one of them being the unification of OWL R
17:49:32 [msmith]
ok. then I agree
17:49:36 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I have pointed out the ideal situation
17:49:57 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should resolve the critical issues in the following couple of weeks
17:50:08 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: one of them is the issue of profiles names
17:50:43 [JeffP]
17:50:45 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: It seems that the least controversial way is to use a simple two letter naming scheme
17:50:53 [Rinke]
And Ian's email:
17:51:45 [bcuencagrau]
The proposal is on the table, second row
17:51:57 [JeffP]
Why not OWL 2 FL?
17:52:32 [m_schnei]
17:52:35 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Jim Hendler complained about changing the name of OWL Full
17:52:35 [msmith]
17:52:37 [msmith]
17:52:38 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:52:38 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:52:41 [IanH]
17:52:55 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:53:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:53:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:53:05 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles
17:53:05 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: this means that we only need to name the profiles
17:53:25 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should just use the three middle columns
17:53:48 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: we don't have to talk about OWL Full, since the issue is only about names for the *profiles*
17:54:43 [IanH]
PROPOSAL: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at; OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged.
17:54:53 [bcuencagrau]
17:54:54 [Rinke]
17:54:54 [IanH]
17:54:54 [MarkusK]
17:54:55 [ewallace]
17:54:56 [JeffP]
17:54:56 [Zhe1]
17:54:58 [Achille]
17:54:59 [pfps]
+1 to finally resolve this xxxxxx issue as EL/QL/RL
17:55:07 [msmith]
+1 (notes revision of wiki page is 2008-07-29T20:17:27)
17:55:37 [MarkusK]
17:55:49 [baojie]
17:55:50 [MarkusK]
17:56:08 [IanH]
RESOLVED: Resolve Issue-108 by using profile names from row 3 or table at (to wit, OWL EL, OWL QL, OWL RL); OWL DL and OWL Full are unchanged.
17:56:16 [bcuencagrau]
17:56:19 [MarkusK]
17:56:34 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: issue resolved
17:56:49 [msmith]
17:56:52 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I skip over 133. Diego is not here
17:56:54 [IanH]
17:57:14 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: We may keep on postponing this issue
17:57:28 [Rinke]
+1 to msmith
17:57:32 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Next week we will resolve it with or without Diego
17:57:45 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Italians do not work in August
17:57:58 [pfps]
one is better than two
17:57:59 [m_schnei]
17:58:03 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:58:03 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:58:12 [msmith]
17:58:14 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:58:18 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:58:18 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:58:36 [pfps]
17:58:42 [IanH]
17:58:42 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: The next issue has Ivan as a protagonist and he is not here
17:58:46 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:59:13 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: This issue should be resolved ASAP
17:59:29 [m_schnei]
is anything else depending on this name?
17:59:32 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: This issue is mostly a matter of taste
17:59:45 [bcuencagrau]
Issue 130: new one
17:59:53 [m_schnei]
except, probably, the GRDDL issue
18:00:16 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: what and where are we going to say about conformance warnings?
18:00:23 [pfps]
18:00:52 [msmith]
18:00:59 [IanH]
18:01:07 [IanH]
18:01:33 [pfps]
18:01:35 [JeffP]
I need more time to think
18:01:46 [IanH]
18:02:13 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: I think what we did in OWL 1 is reasonable
18:02:17 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I agree
18:02:40 [msmith]
18:02:40 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We take as a starting point the OWL 1 doc
18:02:43 [pfps]
+1 to using the OWL 1 wording as the model for the OWL 2 stuff
18:03:06 [bcuencagrau]
pfps: What about the Quick |Reference Doc?
18:03:11 [IanH]
18:03:15 [IanH]
ack pfps
18:03:19 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:03:41 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: the doc only talks about syntax checkers and consistency checkers
18:04:11 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Thi is true. Some of the profiles are more targeted towards query answering
18:04:28 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: But we could take this text as a starting point
18:04:38 [ewallace]
Not really
18:04:54 [IanH]
18:05:05 [bcuencagrau]
18:05:14 [msmith]
Could we spread it out? syntax conformance in syntax. semantic conformance in semantics, etc.
18:05:22 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: nobody really noticed this
18:05:23 [IanH]
18:05:26 [Rinke]
that sounds good actually
18:05:32 [msmith]
18:05:41 [Rinke]
referring to msmith's suggestion
18:05:44 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
18:05:44 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:05:51 [Rinke]
msmith: "Could we spread it out? syntax conformance in syntax. semantic conformance in semantics, etc."
18:06:07 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau: what about the profiles doc?
18:06:10 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: maybe
18:06:24 [JeffP]
+1 profile
18:06:25 [IanH]
18:06:30 [bcuencagrau]
18:06:38 [IanH]
ack bcuencagrau
18:06:40 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, mute me
18:06:40 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted
18:06:41 [IanH]
18:06:46 [IanH]
ack msmith
18:06:49 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: we could split it
18:07:00 [ewallace]
+1 to MSmith suggestion
18:07:09 [bcuencagrau]
msmith: sntactic conformance in the syntax doc, etc
18:07:20 [IanH]
18:07:32 [Rinke]
+1 to split
18:07:36 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Seems reasonable to split it up into docs
18:07:48 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We could move on to 104
18:08:12 [m_schnei]
18:08:16 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: this has been here for a while
18:08:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:08:24 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:08:28 [IanH]
18:08:30 [Zakim]
18:08:35 [IanH]
18:08:41 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:09:04 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: in the OWL 1 spec there was a list of URIs which was disallowed
18:09:38 [IanH]
18:09:57 [bcuencagrau]
mschnei: For example, should we allowed for rdf:List?
18:09:59 [IanH]
18:10:38 [bcuencagrau]
m_schnei: The other issue is the use of reification vocabulary
18:10:56 [IanH]
18:11:08 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:11:08 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:11:32 [IanH]
18:11:35 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: I do not see the point for using the reification vocabulary. There could be an argument for the List vocabulary
18:11:37 [m_schnei]
this is simply a (slight?) backwards compatibility issue
18:12:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:12:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:12:15 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: It seems that we may be ready to resolve the issue
18:12:40 [pfps]
+1 to break this compatability
18:12:48 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:12:48 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:13:19 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We propose to close this issue but acknowledging that there is a backwards compatibility issue
18:13:56 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:13:56 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:15:00 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:15:00 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:15:10 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: possibly resolve by taking no action
18:15:18 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-104 by taking no action
18:15:23 [pfps]
+1 to no action and thus break compatability
18:15:28 [bcuencagrau]
18:15:29 [m_schnei]
actually, there *is* disallowed vocabulary in the Functional Spec by listing different namespaces
18:15:30 [Rinke]
18:15:32 [msmith]
18:15:34 [MarkusK]
18:15:35 [m_schnei]
18:15:37 [Rinke]
18:15:37 [baojie]
18:15:44 [IanH]
18:15:45 [Achille]
18:15:46 [JeffP]
18:16:38 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We should skip 118
18:16:49 [Zhe1]
18:17:07 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Issue 129 is related to the previous one
18:17:33 [IanH]
18:17:35 [pfps]
no change means disallow list vocabulary
18:17:44 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: if we used List vocabulary in OWL 2 DL, this would be in conflict with our proposal
18:17:55 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: in issue 104
18:17:58 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: disallowing xsd: as a whole is not different from disallowing rdfs: because the Functional spec explicitly allows the annotation properties from RDFS (kind of overwriting disallowing the whole namespace)
18:18:10 [IanH]
18:18:15 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Therefore our proposal for resolving 129 implies a proposal to resolve 104
18:18:17 [m_schnei]
18:18:23 [IanH]
18:18:24 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:25 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:18:25 [pfps]
out damned list :-)
18:18:50 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:18:50 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:19:06 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: it is not a very active issue
18:19:08 [msmith]
I believe this issue lost some steam when object/data property punning left
18:19:21 [MarkusK]
yes, msmith is right
18:19:23 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: Strawpoll on this one
18:19:28 [Rinke]
there's a thread starting at
18:19:30 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: Resolve ISSUE-129 by taking no action
18:19:59 [m_schnei]
18:20:06 [bcuencagrau]
18:20:09 [Achille]
18:20:13 [IanH]
18:20:13 [JeffP]
18:20:14 [Rinke]
18:20:20 [pfps]
+1 to letting lists dangle
18:20:20 [Zhe1]
18:20:23 [ratnesh]
18:20:29 [baojie]
0 not 100% clear
18:20:31 [Rinke]
(rdf lists don't add much)
18:20:34 [MarkusK]
18:21:27 [m_schnei]
18:21:32 [baojie]
18:21:40 [m_schnei]
18:21:46 [IanH]
18:22:07 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: We are done!!
18:22:16 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: additional business?
18:22:20 [IanH]
18:22:23 [m_schnei]
jie, use of the rdf:List vocabulary was already disallowed in OWL 1 DL, so nothing changes here
18:22:32 [pfps]
we *could* knock of rich annotations :-)
18:22:36 [bcuencagrau]
IanH: no additional business
18:22:47 [JeffP]
18:22:47 [Zhe1]
18:22:48 [Rinke]
thanks, bye!
18:22:49 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, unmute me
18:22:49 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should no longer be muted
18:22:51 [Zakim]
18:22:52 [Zakim]
18:22:52 [Zakim]
18:22:52 [ratnesh]
18:22:53 [Zakim]
18:22:53 [Zakim]
18:22:54 [m_schnei]
18:22:54 [Zakim]
18:22:54 [Zakim]
18:22:55 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:22:59 [Zakim]
18:23:07 [Zakim]
18:23:12 [Zakim]
18:23:20 [Zakim]
18:23:25 [Zakim]
18:23:26 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:23:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, ratnesh, Ian_Horrocks, MarkusK, +1.202.408.aaaa, msmith, Achille, Rinke, Zhe, +1.518.276.aacc, JeffP, m_schnei, Evan_Wallace,
18:23:30 [Zakim]
... baojie