17:52:23 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:52:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/19-owl-irc 17:52:30 Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:52:30 ok, pfps; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 17:52:40 RRSAgent, make records public 17:55:05 msmith has joined #owl 17:55:09 IanH has joined #owl 17:55:35 zakim, this will be owlwg 17:55:35 ok, msmith; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 17:55:45 ScribeNick: msmith 17:55:47 uli has joined #owl 17:55:57 RRSAgent, make records public 17:56:29 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:56:37 Rinke has joined #owl 17:56:39 +msmith 17:56:49 ewallace has joined #owl 17:56:59 +IanH 17:57:17 zakim, who is here? 17:57:17 On the phone I see msmith, IanH 17:57:18 On IRC I see ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro 17:57:57 +Evan_Wallace 17:58:01 (I cannot dial in, but will try to follow as much as I can on IRC) 17:58:09 MarkusK_ has joined #owl 17:58:51 +??P10 17:59:01 zakim, ??P10 is me 17:59:01 +uli; got it 17:59:05 zakim, mute me 17:59:05 uli should now be muted 17:59:12 bcuencagrau has joined #owl 17:59:43 bmotik has joined #owl 17:59:48 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 18:00:14 +??P12 18:00:17 zakim, who is here? 18:00:17 On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P12 18:00:20 Zakim, ??P12 is me 18:00:20 On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro 18:00:23 +bcuencagrau; got it 18:01:10 ianh: regrets from Ivan, Alan 18:01:15 zakim, who is here? 18:01:15 On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau 18:01:17 On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro 18:01:21 +??P13 18:01:24 +Sandro 18:01:30 Zakim, ??P13 is me# 18:01:30 +me#; got it 18:01:30 Topic: Admin 18:01:37 zakim, who is here? 18:01:37 On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau, me#, Sandro 18:01:37 Zakim, ??P13 is me 18:01:40 On IRC I see bmotik, bcuencagrau, MarkusK_, ewallace, Rinke, uli, IanH, msmith, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps, baojie, trackbot, sandro 18:01:41 Zakim, mute me 18:01:43 I already had ??P13 as me#, bmotik 18:01:44 sorry, bmotik, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:01:54 Zhe has joined #owl 18:02:00 ianh: no agenda ammendments 18:02:02 last week's minutes look fine 18:02:02 Zakim, me# is bmotik 18:02:02 +bmotik; got it 18:02:03 +Zhe 18:02:07 Zakim, mute me 18:02:07 bmotik should now be muted 18:02:12 last week's minutes look acceptable 18:02:15 Zakim, mute me 18:02:15 bcuencagrau should now be muted 18:02:17 oi! 18:02:24 PROPOSED accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-12 18:02:25 PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes (12 November) 18:02:32 +1 18:02:35 +1 18:02:38 +1 18:02:41 +1 18:02:44 +1 18:02:48 +1 18:02:50 RESOLVED accept minutes of 2008-11-12 telecon at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-12 18:03:04 F2F4 day 2 minutes are now OK (after Alan's cleanup) 18:03:10 PROPOSED accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-10-24 18:03:12 +baojie 18:03:14 +1 18:03:19 +1 18:03:19 +1 18:03:21 +1 18:03:25 +1 18:03:26 +1 18:03:26 RESOLVED accept minutes of F2F4 Day 2 at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-10-24 18:03:51 subtopic: pending review actions 18:03:56 +[IPcaller] 18:04:01 I think that the actions are OK (and some were OK last week) 18:04:07 ACTION-238 closed 18:04:08 ACTION-242 closed 18:04:08 ACTION-244 closed 18:04:08 ACTION-246 closed 18:04:08 ACTION-238 Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F closed 18:04:08 ACTION-242 Will make a proposal regarding naming alignment between the functional syntax and RDF syntax based on the summary from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0150.html closed 18:04:09 ACTION-244 Come up with an analysis of whether OWL 2 should include XMLLiteral closed 18:04:13 ACTION-246 Convert review comments to editors notes (except rinke's) closed 18:04:25 Q? 18:04:29 topic: reviewing and publishing 18:05:06 ianh: dec 1 was tentative deadline for last call publishing. we are now getting close 18:05:10 Q? 18:05:22 ... last call checklist has been completed (excepting items already on agenda) 18:05:22 q+ sotd 18:05:27 ... any questions? 18:05:35 Q? 18:05:43 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_4 18:05:44 ack sandro 18:05:52 ack sotd 18:06:04 sandro: we should start on text describing status of documents 18:06:08 q+ 18:06:17 ... it should include changes from previous publish 18:06:25 ... and some context for new documents 18:06:31 ianh: is this in each document? 18:06:51 q? 18:06:54 sandro: people should use the wiki link (provided above) and it will be put in the doc during publishing 18:07:07 ianh: changes wrt last draft? 18:07:10 ack pfps 18:07:17 sandro: yes, last published working draft 18:07:37 pfps: we have a problem with location of features document 18:07:49 sandro: yes, but it doesn't matter for publication 18:08:10 ianh: yes, and all non-correct locations being redirected (or some other resolution) 18:08:19 zakim, who is on the call? 18:08:19 On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_ 18:08:27 sandro: we need an action for this. we discussed it before and nothing happened 18:08:45 ianh: i can take an action. we also said requirements should occur in the name somewhere 18:09:13 alanr has joined #owl 18:09:16 ... I remember "requirements and new features" 18:09:46 ACTION: ian consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document 18:09:46 Created ACTION-248 - Consult with editors on title and clean up wiki location of requirement document [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26]. 18:09:57 q- 18:10:22 ianh: on Round 4 page, this is an action on each editor to handle their documents? 18:10:27 q? 18:10:29 I'll handle the documents I've been editing, no prolem. 18:10:33 Achille has joined #owl 18:10:41 +[IBM] 18:10:48 Zakim, IBM is me 18:10:48 +Achille; got it 18:10:49 ... should we create actions explicitly? I will do so after the telecon (to avoid the time required now) 18:11:34 action: ian make sure SOTD text on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_4 gets filled in 18:11:34 Created ACTION-249 - Make sure SOTD text on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Round_4 gets filled in [on Ian Horrocks - due 2008-11-26]. 18:11:53 q? 18:12:11 subtopic: Other considerations 18:12:16 issue-145? 18:12:16 ISSUE-145 -- RESOLVED: Which serializations should have mime types and file extensions (and what should they be) -- CLOSED 18:12:16 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/145 18:12:21 subsubtopic: ISSUE-145 18:12:32 q? 18:12:37 yay! 18:12:39 ianh: I understand this to be resolved. Sandro considers himself the contact to IETF 18:13:03 action: sandro send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications 18:13:03 Created ACTION-250 - Send mime-type registrations in to IETF when we do last-call publications [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-26]. 18:13:31 q? 18:13:43 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:13:43 On the phone I see msmith, IanH, Evan_Wallace, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, bcuencagrau (muted), bmotik (muted), Sandro, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK_, Achille 18:13:43 subsubtopic: Check with XML Schema WG on name of dateTime ... 18:13:46 q? 18:13:59 ianh: pfps has been point man with XML Schema WG 18:14:27 pfps: I just sent a message to someone in that WG, asking for pointer to final resolution. 18:14:39 ... I will ask about publication schedule 18:15:02 ianh: assuming no satisfactory answer on publication or datatype name. what's the plan? 18:15:15 ... can we make the name of the datatype "at risk" or something? 18:15:15 q? 18:15:22 sandro: I think we can do that 18:15:32 ianh: "subject to change", etc. 18:15:51 q? 18:15:53 sandro: in general we want at risk to be binary (options are A or B), not be open ended 18:16:02 pfps: we can do that for the datatype name 18:16:07 q? 18:16:17 It already says that 18:16:31 It's not. 18:16:34 highlighted 18:16:36 ianh: someone needs to make sure it is binary in document 18:16:42 sandro: is it marked at risk? 18:16:49 q+ 18:16:53 Zakim, unmute me 18:16:53 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:16:54 q? 18:16:58 ack bmotik 18:16:58 ianh: a couple other things are marked at risk 18:17:19 bmotik: is there a style for at risk? it's marked with an editor's note. is that sufficient 18:17:36 sandro: take a look at the RIF BLD for a template 18:17:52 bmotik: // reading from spec // 18:18:07 sandro: we should more formally call out "at risk" 18:18:25 ... in the status of the document section 18:18:54 I made the change that the fallback is owl:dateTime 18:19:03 ianh: we should explicitly say something about the outcome if the risked scenario comes to pass 18:19:11 q? 18:19:19 ... take this offline 18:19:22 q? 18:19:39 q+ 18:19:41 bmotik: several other editorial notes are present. E.g., bug related to xs:decimal 18:19:43 q? 18:20:12 q? 18:20:13 ianh: I suggest saying something more or less the same. 18:20:16 ack pfps 18:20:23 Zakim, mute me 18:20:23 bmotik should now be muted 18:20:29 pfps: XML Schema WG has fixed this, they haven't published the fix 18:20:45 ... I will ask for a pointer so that we can reuse their wording 18:21:27 sandro: procedural threat - we can't normatively reference less mature specifications 18:21:51 ianh: this is the point of the next item. can we point to XML Schema 1.1 18:22:07 sandro: we can for last call and CR, but not for PR and Rec 18:22:37 q+ 18:22:37 ... this could require a different URI for the property if the XML Schema WG can't move fast enough 18:22:43 q? 18:22:48 ack pfps 18:22:49 ... this is bone-headed and we look for a workaround 18:23:07 pfps: we could squat on xsd:our-datetime if we know what it is 18:23:18 q? 18:23:48 ... for decimal, they will be changing the minimal implementation text. we will copy it. if it changes, its ugly but we don't expect that to happen 18:23:54 q? 18:24:23 subsubtopic: freezing features 18:24:38 q? 18:24:44 ianh: we have to decide that we're not going to introduce or change features at this point 18:24:55 ... or we won't be able to keep our schedule 18:25:00 ... any objections to this? 18:25:08 ... when are we going to freeze the documents? 18:25:09 no objection from me 18:25:14 freeze, yes 18:25:45 sandro: any changes need to have more review. so, hopefully no more review 18:26:24 ... there isn't a formal requirement to freeze for publishing. I make a snapshot (probably in the next few days) 18:26:31 q? 18:26:42 ... I don't have a sense of the state editor's believe the documents to be in 18:26:58 ianh: I was expecting to say something like "by the end of this week" 18:27:17 ... then sandro can snapshot and we have one week for typos, etc. 18:27:30 sandro: ok, any changes after that require chair approval 18:27:37 fine by me 18:27:39 Great! 18:27:39 Yes 18:27:39 ianh: editors, is this ok? 18:27:41 yes 18:27:47 yes 18:28:02 ianh: person that might object is mschnei 18:28:20 ... I will contact him after the telecon to confirm his consent 18:28:38 sandro: the one doc we're not republishing is primer. do we want to say something about that? 18:29:01 ... text that suggests we intend to update and publish it in the future. 18:29:04 that sounds good to me 18:29:15 q? 18:29:23 sandro: Do I understand that correctly? 18:29:45 .. maybe we put such text in the ref card status of document, since the docs are related 18:30:09 topic: Issues 18:30:33 q? 18:30:40 subtopic: ISSUE-87 18:30:58 schneid has joined #owl 18:30:59 q? 18:31:02 confirm 18:31:04 Yep 18:31:11 ianh: I understood from minutes this was handled last week 18:31:27 PROPOSED resolve ISSUE-87 as in terms at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-11-12#Mime_types 18:31:48 wrong section 18:31:52 if you put the colon after "proposed" then it gets nicely formatted. 18:32:04 PROPOSED close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience 18:32:27 +??P1 18:32:33 zakim, ??P1 is me 18:32:33 +schneid; got it 18:32:37 zakim, mute me 18:32:37 schneid should now be muted 18:32:46 PROPOSED: close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience 18:32:52 +1 (NIST) 18:32:57 +1 (ALU) 18:32:59 +1 (FZI) 18:33:00 +1 (Man) 18:33:00 +1 (IBM) 18:33:04 +1 18:33:05 +1 (RPI) 18:33:07 +1 (Oxfrd) 18:33:08 +1 18:33:10 +1 (UvA) 18:33:11 +1 (W3C) 18:33:13 s/Oxfrd/Oxford 18:33:24 RESOLVED: close ISSUE-87 by adding rational datatype but marking it as at risk, pending implementation experience 18:33:31 +1 18:33:57 ianh: mschnei is present now, revert to publishing discussion 18:34:18 zakim, unmute me 18:34:18 schneid should no longer be muted 18:34:23 ... we agreed to freeze docs by end of week, modulo minor errors being fixed. can you live with that? 18:34:45 schneid: I've just started some changes. Sunday? 18:35:09 ianh: we need to freeze fairly soon. Can you accept Sunday? 18:35:34 schneid: yes, since RDF semantics is just second draft 18:35:44 ... I can branch the doc and make larger changes on branch 18:35:49 q? 18:35:59 ianh: reluctant to suggest a branch given problems with rqmts doc 18:36:10 schneid: ok, I will focus on the smaller changes 18:36:24 zakim, mute me 18:36:24 schneid should now be muted 18:36:51 ianh: back to issues 18:36:56 q? 18:37:09 q? 18:37:18 PROPOSED: remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0105.html 18:37:23 +1 (IBM) 18:37:27 +1 (W3C) 18:37:29 +1 (FZI) 18:37:30 +1 (C&P) 18:37:35 +1 (Oxford) 18:37:36 +1 (ALU) 18:37:37 +1 (Man) 18:37:45 +1 (ORACLE) 18:37:45 +1 (NIST) 18:37:55 +1 (Uva) 18:37:58 RESOLVED: remove xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0105.html 18:37:59 +1 (RPI) 18:38:19 ianh: last issue, proposal to simplify structure of annotations 18:38:41 q? 18:38:46 Zakim, unmute me 18:38:46 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:38:50 q? 18:39:05 bmotik: several aspects to this change 18:39:30 ... first, introduce one class AnnotationValue to avoid AnnotationByIndividual AnnotationByLiteral ... 18:39:40 then unify the syntax 18:40:22 q? 18:40:35 q: wondering about alternatives to "URI" 18:40:35 ... second, currently you can have several annotation values per axiom. this is complex. I propose to require separate axioms for multiple annotations 18:40:51 q? 18:40:56 ianh: this wouldn't change the RDF? 18:40:59 sounds good to me 18:41:10 bmotik: correct, but it would make things more round-trippable 18:41:23 sounds fine to me too 18:41:35 q+ 18:41:41 only on IRC 18:41:48 ack alanr 18:41:49 alan - go ahead 18:41:56 q? 18:42:03 Sent mail re: using "URI" in annotations 18:42:14 I saw this e-mail, but I didn't understand it. 18:42:14 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0120.html 18:42:17 and mentioned at f2f 18:42:40 Looks like a positive change to me. I'm still uncomfortable with the 18:42:40 URI as name for "entities which we may have different 'views' of". 18:42:41 Perhaps there is some variant of URI (that uses the term "view" in it) 18:42:41 that better expresses that it is something identified that we are 18:42:41 We aren't annotating a URI, which is a syntactic element, we are annotating a resource, but without specifying a view 18:42:41 talking about, rather than the identifier of that thing. i.e. in 18:42:41 productions about properties, we use ObjectProperty := URI, not 18:42:43 ObjectPropertyURI := URI 18:42:45 possibilities: AnyView, AllViews, SomeView, Entity, Resource... 18:42:50 tks 18:42:54 q+ 18:42:57 Zakim, unmute me 18:42:57 bmotik was not muted, bmotik 18:42:59 Resource is most clear 18:43:03 ... but they are ... (wait for it) ... URIs (or at least IRIs) 18:43:11 so is a property, then 18:43:25 bmotik: I didn't understand this question. 18:43:39 oooh, good point 18:43:54 We have several views currently 18:43:54 sandro: I believe he's saying that we're not talking about the URI, we're talking about the thing denoted by the URI 18:44:00 yes 18:44:11 But we don't have a specific view 18:44:19 "view" is the language used by Boris 18:44:31 This annotation is to all the "views" 18:44:32 sandro: I think alanr is saying that using URI in the syntax is likely to mislead and that alternative names for the productions could be helpful 18:44:38 yes 18:44:48 sorry - this is hard over text 18:44:52 bmotik: entity is already used in the structural spec 18:45:04 q? 18:45:10 ack bmotik 18:45:11 the non-terminals could be "Resource" instead of "URI", a la RDF 18:45:16 +1 18:45:50 no just for these things that are on the "URI" 18:45:56 q+ 18:45:58 ianh: we're talking just about the proposal here. 18:46:05 q? 18:46:07 ack pfps 18:46:23 pfps: the only change would be for non-terminals ... are there any ... no 18:46:35 ianh: I don't see any non-terminals with URI in them 18:46:50 Alan: we don't see any productions with URI in them anymore. 18:46:53 pfps: URI annotation is gone, so changing URI annotation to Resource annotation isn't helpful 18:46:58 So we can't understand your point. 18:47:17 Alan? 18:47:17 Will review and get back on email. 18:47:18 tks 18:47:32 But we need to resolve it now. 18:47:42 tks? 18:47:45 thanks 18:47:48 We have agreed to finalise documents by end of this week. 18:48:15 looking now 18:48:24 q+ 18:48:30 q? 18:48:33 ianh: given alan is basically in favor... 18:48:43 q- 18:48:53 sandro: we should make the decision, alan can decide to amend the decision 18:48:58 PROPOSED: simplify structure of annotations as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0115.html 18:49:00 s/decide/propose/ 18:49:10 +1 18:49:11 e.g. AnnotationPropertyRange := 'PropertyRange' '(' axiomAnnotations AnnotationProperty URI ')' 18:49:17 +1 18:49:34 +1 18:49:36 +1 18:49:39 +1 18:49:40 0 18:49:41 +1 18:49:42 0 18:49:42 0 18:49:42 0 18:49:47 +1 18:49:51 +1 18:50:05 RESOLVED: simplify structure of annotations as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0115.html 18:50:22 ianh: we will talk to alan offline. to better understand his point 18:50:31 (Alan, if you're not happy with this resolution, we can consider some ammendment.) 18:50:49 ok 18:50:57 subsubtopic: Deprecation 18:51:17 q? 18:51:19