17:36:01 RRSAgent has joined #owl 17:36:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-owl-irc 17:36:13 Zakim, this will be owlwg 17:36:13 ok, MartinD; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 24 minutes 17:36:42 RRSagent, make records public 17:52:44 bijan has joined #owl 17:52:53 baojie has joined #owl 17:53:16 Zhe has joined #owl 17:54:20 SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started 17:54:27 +??P0 17:54:33 zakim, ??p0 is me 17:54:33 +bijan; got it 17:54:55 + +0190827aaaa 17:54:58 -bijan 17:54:59 +bijan 17:55:05 zakim, aaaa is me 17:55:05 +MartinD; got it 17:55:15 zakim, mute me 17:55:15 MartinD should now be muted 17:55:20 zakim, mute me 17:55:20 bijan should now be muted 17:55:58 ratnesh has joined #owl 17:58:13 bcuencag has joined #owl 17:58:23 Achille has joined #owl 17:59:04 + +1.914.421.aabb 17:59:24 Zakim, aabb is me 17:59:25 + +86528aacc 17:59:25 +Achille; got it 17:59:39 Zakim, mute me 17:59:39 Achille should now be muted 17:59:48 +IanH 17:59:56 ewallace has joined #owl 18:00:00 zakim, who is here? 18:00:00 On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), +86528aacc, IanH 18:00:02 On IRC I see ewallace, Achille, bcuencag, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot 18:00:21 - +86528aacc 18:00:30 +Evan_Wallace 18:00:30 bmotik has joined #owl 18:00:43 ScribeNick: MartinD 18:00:54 +??P5 18:00:55 Martin, are you ready to scribe? 18:01:02 + +0186528aadd 18:01:05 yep... 18:01:06 +pfps 18:01:13 Good -- thanks! 18:01:15 Zakim, ++0186528aadd is me 18:01:15 sorry, bmotik, I do not recognize a party named '++0186528aadd' 18:01:19 zakim, ??P5 is me 18:01:19 +ratnesh; got it 18:01:20 Zakim, +0186528aadd is me 18:01:20 +bmotik; got it 18:01:23 zakim, who is here? 18:01:23 On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik, pfps 18:01:25 On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, bcuencag, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot 18:01:26 Zakim, mute me 18:01:27 +baojie 18:01:27 bmotik should now be muted 18:01:39 +bmotik.a 18:01:54 Topic: Admin matters 18:02:09 zakim, who is here? 18:02:09 On the phone I see bijan (muted), MartinD (muted), Achille (muted), IanH, Evan_Wallace, ratnesh, bmotik (muted), pfps, baojie, bmotik.a 18:02:12 On IRC I see bmotik, ewallace, Achille, bcuencag, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, MartinD, IanH, sandro, trackbot 18:02:16 msmith will be a bit late 18:02:16 pfps has joined #owl 18:02:19 Zakim, mute me 18:02:19 sorry, bcuencag, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:02:21 q+ 18:02:23 Ian: checking who's here; any agenda ammendments? 18:02:28 q? 18:02:33 ack pfps 18:02:35 -bmotik.a 18:02:39 +Zhe 18:02:48 zakim, mute me 18:02:49 Zhe should now be muted 18:02:59 Peter: agenda was messed up - e.g., the minute approval for 14 instead of 21 January 18:03:09 +bmotik.a 18:03:22 Ian: extra item needed -- approving both sets of minutes (14 Jan, 21 Jan) 18:03:26 My actions aren't on 18:03:28 schneid has joined #owl 18:03:29 q? 18:03:30 Peter: action status has also changed 18:03:33 +Sandro 18:03:38 q? 18:03:46 q+ 18:03:57 Ian: let's look at the agenda from 14 Jan 18:04:01 Can we we resolve my pending review actions? 18:04:09 +??P15 18:04:10 +??P14 18:04:11 q? 18:04:16 zakim, unmute me 18:04:16 bijan should no longer be muted 18:04:17 q+ 18:04:20 ack bijan 18:04:25 ivan has joined #owl 18:04:28 ...there was a problem with incorrect records, which needed fixing 18:04:30 christine has joined #owl 18:04:30 Zakim, ??P15 is me 18:04:30 +bcuencag; got it 18:04:31 zakim, ??P15 is me 18:04:32 I already had ??P15 as bcuencag, schneid 18:04:37 zakim, dial ivan-voip 18:04:37 ok, ivan; the call is being made 18:04:38 zakim, ??P14 is me 18:04:39 +schneid; got it 18:04:39 +Ivan 18:04:44 Zakim, mute me 18:04:44 bcuencag should now be muted 18:04:50 zakim, mute me 18:04:50 schneid should now be muted 18:04:56 zakim, mute me 18:04:56 bijan should now be muted 18:04:56 Bijan: is it correct, there is only one item under pending review? 18:05:00 yes 18:05:05 q? 18:05:11 Zakim, unmute me 18:05:11 Achille should no longer be muted 18:05:15 ack Achille 18:05:36 thanks 18:05:52 zakim, mute me 18:05:52 bijan was already muted, bijan 18:05:55 Achille: I just send an email about the issues/concerns raised in those minutes from 14 Jan 18:05:58 zakim, unmute me 18:05:58 bijan should no longer be muted 18:06:03 q? 18:06:15 Bijan: changes look fine 18:06:40 zakim, mute me 18:06:40 bijan should now be muted 18:06:46 Zakim, mute me 18:06:46 Achille should now be muted 18:06:47 14 jan acceptable 18:07:00 PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14) 18:07:11 12 jan minutes minimally acceptable ... 18:07:14 RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 14 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-14_ 18:07:16 They looked good to me. 18:07:28 21 jan MINIMALLY acceptable ... 18:07:41 one thing that scribes should do is reorder headings to get things in the right place 18:07:56 Ian: from people's opinion it looks 21 Jan is also acceptable, although minimally 18:08:05 but I'm not going to hold up this time, as the intent can be deciphered 18:08:10 ...any more work needs to be done by scribe? 18:08:23 ... let's accept the other ones too 18:08:37 PROPOSED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21) 18:08:46 RESOLVED: Accept minutes from 21 January (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-21) 18:08:55 Topic: Action items status 18:08:55 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/pendingreview 18:09:16 Ian: we have several actions from Bijan, most are done afaik 18:09:21 q+ 18:09:29 ack pfps 18:09:35 q+ 18:09:43 Peter: a number of these have to do with last call's actions, but not sure what's the process here 18:10:10 ... do we need to re-vote or re-send message or approve message(s) from Bijan or ?? 18:10:18 zakim, unmute me 18:10:18 bijan should no longer be muted 18:10:23 q? 18:10:26 Ian: unsure what's the official line... 18:10:32 ack bijan 18:10:57 Bijan: this is not about my ownership of the docs written... 18:11:03 q? 18:11:51 Ian: if someone was in charge of acting on some changes, that person would send it as a "proposal" and if no objections then approved... but let's get back to this later 18:12:07 Ian: all actions in pending category can be cleared now... 18:12:08 q+ 18:12:12 q? 18:12:16 ack pfps 18:12:23 ACTION-269 is done ormotted 18:12:25 mooted 18:12:49 Peter: one of alan's action (action 247) was outstanding for quite a while... 18:13:04 Ian: yes, this needs to be concluded soon 18:13:33 ACTION: Ian to talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment... 18:13:33 Created ACTION-271 - Talk to Alan about acting on action 247 or withdraw the comment... [on Ian Horrocks - due 2009-02-04]. 18:13:49 the point is that 247 is blocking other work 18:14:06 Ian: other actions cannot be moved on, at this point 18:14:15 Topic: face to face meeting (no.5) 18:14:17 q? 18:14:39 Ian: we are confirming, this meeting goes ahead... 18:15:03 ... F2F5 = http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F5 18:15:24 ... would be useful if as many people as possible come and join, as there is quite some important stuff to do 18:15:36 Topic: Last call comments 18:16:00 q+ 18:16:02 Ian: see here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ and http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments 18:16:08 zakim, unmute me 18:16:08 bijan was not muted, bijan 18:16:08 ack bijan 18:16:34 ... first let's talk about how to approach the situation if somebody has an action to draft a response, what should we do with the outcome 18:16:41 q+ 18:16:46 q? 18:16:59 Bijan: depends on type of action - whether it proposes to change something or only to clarify 18:17:39 ack pfps 18:17:45 Ian: might be useful to look at the last call page on the wiki... so that we can go down, see the status, see the response and if happy, just go on with it 18:18:17 Peter: we already had this response to the call; that is THE thing we did... the affected doc does map correctly? 18:18:35 Ian: might be useful to say explicitly which doc needs touching 18:19:30 Bijan: I would update keys with what I understand happened... no draft there to doc on syntax? do we need another column on this? 18:19:46 q? 18:20:03 Ian: maybe enough to just put in who does work on it, otherwise bookkeeping is going to take too much overhead 18:20:38 Bijan: if chairs are not sending those responses, then each response should have a concrete owner - who would then respond, right? 18:21:07 Peter: the response would link to an email, point made earlier 18:21:13 zakim, mute me 18:21:13 bijan should now be muted 18:21:21 Ian: should also point to incoming email and perhaps copied to public owl list 18:21:42 Peter: there is quite a few msgs in the "response" column... 18:21:48 zakim, unmute me 18:21:48 bijan should no longer be muted 18:21:50 q+ 18:21:56 q? 18:22:05 Ian: do we need to contact the people making responses that we provided comments? 18:22:22 q+ 18:22:26 ack bijan 18:22:30 zakim, mute me 18:22:30 bijan should now be muted 18:22:38 q- 18:22:48 ... we should have a template for email going out to people with a response, asking them whether this satisfies the objections, etc. 18:22:57 yep 18:22:57 ... provide this later... 18:22:58 +1 18:22:58 good 18:23:18 q+ 18:23:31 ack ivan 18:23:33 ... so, we will add an "owner" to each objection/response, and the "response" will actually point to the email sent to the original objection 18:23:57 Ivan: we may need another column - need pointer to the email from commentator saying "yes happy with changes" 18:24:11 commentor responses could go in status column 18:24:30 ... we need a trace from "objection" - "our response" - "their acceptance of change or otherwise" 18:24:55 q? 18:25:00 ack christine 18:25:01 ... in between these recorded points there may be some discussion, but at least resolutions would be clear 18:25:14 q? 18:25:22 msmith has joined #owl 18:25:25 +msmith 18:25:48 Christine -- we can't hear you! 18:26:13 a columm about who answers 18:26:21 q+ 18:26:23 -schneid 18:26:25 zakim, mute me 18:26:25 bijan was already muted, bijan 18:26:27 Ian: what are we doing about comments on new features/requirements 18:26:30 ack bijan 18:26:43 seems there is a mix wi 18:27:04 Bijan: suggestion - treat these separately, comments on draft are different from suggestions for new features; 18:27:24 please wait for the connection 18:27:27 ... we may then contact proposers separately with what is going to happen with their suggestions 18:27:34 +??P21 18:27:35 just use a special status flag for these 18:27:39 q? 18:27:55 Ian: but we may still want to trace these responses somehow... some of them might be quite substantial 18:27:56 zakim, P21 is christine 18:27:56 sorry, christine, I do not recognize a party named 'P21' 18:28:02 zakim, mute me 18:28:02 bijan should now be muted 18:28:12 zakim, ?p21 is christine 18:28:12 sorry, MartinD, I do not recognize a party named '?p21' 18:28:13 q? 18:28:20 zakim, ??p21 is christine 18:28:20 +christine; got it 18:28:47 Christine: regarding that special column for replies... I didn't understand how the owner is going to be appointed 18:29:08 Ian: volunteering or general agreement? but there will be a column on the owner 18:29:09 Do we need a place to collect the comments on NF and R? 18:29:28 Christine: regarding how to comment / react on new features 18:29:49 ewallace, i suggested that we put them into one issue in the tracker 18:29:57 but a wiki page are good 18:30:13 ... pick points from mailing list and sort them into two type - "can't fix them directly" vs. "somehow linked to LC comments - need reply"? 18:30:15 q+ 18:30:19 zakim, unmute me 18:30:19 bijan should no longer be muted 18:30:38 Bijan: not sure we need to have them as LC 18:30:58 +q 18:31:02 Ian: the issue is that LC comments are mixed with new feature proposal.. 18:31:22 q? 18:31:30 zakim, mute me 18:31:30 bijan should now be muted 18:31:37 ... "can't see feature X" now; but then the amendments may be included in the final version... 18:31:54 ack bijan 18:32:03 zakim, mute me 18:32:03 bijan should now be muted 18:32:05 ... christine's point on a concrete wiki page, similar to LC comments may do... trying to categorize as suggested 18:32:08 ack christine 18:32:28 Christine: agree that these are not LC comments, it's just they may need reply and we should be consistent 18:32:47 Ian: you take action then to produce the page consolidating new features and rationale? 18:33:14 q? 18:33:19 ACTION: Christine to produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments 18:33:19 Created ACTION-272 - Produce a wiki page to consolidate new features/rationales from email responses that got mixed into LC comments [on Christine Golbreich - due 2009-02-04]. 18:33:36 Ian: was asked by Alan to include comment from Mike here... 18:33:48 q? 18:34:03 Mike: related to issue 135, resolved earlier... 18:34:08 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=11045&oldid=10323 18:34:22 ... resolution embedded in the RDF mapping doc 18:34:53 q+ 18:34:54 ... then it was written in a way that any RDF graph with no typing triple will become "an anonymous OWL ontology"? 18:35:03 q? 18:35:11 pointers? 18:35:12 zakim, unmute me 18:35:12 bmotik should no longer be muted 18:35:16 ... in my email I gave example how this may affect our test cases 18:35:17 ack bmotik 18:35:42 Boris: at last f2f this was the decision taken - imports vs. inclusions vs. etc. 18:35:53 ... alan was for allowing imports of arbitrary graphs 18:36:21 One example http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001 18:36:42 Ian: the point may be subtler - if RDF graph with no typing header was allowed, now this is reversed, it should work? 18:37:03 Boris: targets of import statements would be merged into graphs... 18:37:08 q? 18:37:15 q+ 18:37:27 ... no aware that these graphs were ok in owl 1... 18:37:28 ack pfps 18:37:56 Peter: discussion turned on the backward compatibility... this was the solution to regain that back compatibility 18:38:06 q? 18:38:08 q+ 18:38:18 q- 18:38:19 q? 18:38:22 zakim, unmute me 18:38:22 bijan should no longer be muted 18:38:22 +1 to pfps 18:38:25 Zakim, mute me 18:38:25 bmotik should now be muted 18:38:28 Ian: so should we treat headerless RDF graphs as OWL ontologies 18:38:34 Peter: as OWL DL ontologies 18:38:38 q+ 18:38:58 Ian: currently they are treated as OWL FULL ontologies, if I follow Peter and Boris correctly 18:38:59 q+ 18:39:02 ack msmith 18:39:07 http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.2-001 18:39:29 Mike: ontologies like the ones in test case above will not be valid OWL 2 DL, if the doc remains as it is now 18:39:42 ack bijan 18:39:46 q? 18:39:46 Ian: so, there is some back compatibility issue and a case that reveals the point 18:40:10 Bijan: confused now; we would normally handle this case, surprised we are not following this up 18:40:54 Ian: this is a kind of along Alan's repair idea... include the graphs, import even graphs that do not satisfy header requirements - treat them as merging with other content 18:41:02 q+ 18:41:09 Bijan: importing seems fine, treating them as standalone is tricky 18:41:17 ack pfps 18:41:27 Ian: yes, they should be imported into "unbroken" one 18:41:35 q+ 18:41:36 q+ 18:41:44 ack bijan 18:41:56 Peter: current broken ontologies are those that miss certain declarations; the discussion was not about importing 18:42:28 q? 18:42:38 zakim, unmute me 18:42:38 sorry, schneid, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:42:39 zakim, mute me 18:42:39 bijan should now be muted 18:42:44 Bijan: standalone fragments remain OWL FULL, if imported into properly typed ontologies, they may become OWL 2 DL - but only via import (kind of inherit typing info) 18:42:45 ack mschneid 18:42:51 ack schneid 18:43:22 what with the RHS of an entailment: does it need an ontology header? 18:43:25 -christine 18:43:30 zakim, mute me 18:43:30 sorry, schneid, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 18:43:32 Ian: are we happy that we knew about this and nothing needs changing right now? 18:43:41 Let O1 be the OWL Full but not OWL DL ontology, and O2 another ontology. If O2 imports O1 results in a OWL DL ontology, that is fine and does not involve repair. 18:43:47 I am extatic 18:44:03 there was a mix between scnheid and me ! 18:44:03 q? 18:44:05 Fixing O1 is changing the ontology, which puts it into repair mode 18:44:08 ... mike raised this, are you accepting this? 18:44:09 -bcuencag 18:44:29 Mike: good that other people are comfortable, I just came across a case raising this 18:44:44 Ian: let's go to last call comments 18:45:00 +??P15 18:45:07 q? 18:45:08 ... thing that wasn't discussed - do we go down the list, quick discussion and allocate ownership? 18:45:14 q+ 18:45:16 chair's pero.. perrog.. choice 18:45:18 ... suggeestions? 18:45:19 q? 18:45:23 zakim, ??P15 is christine 18:45:23 +christine; got it 18:45:55 Ivan: there is a number of comments of type "good job" and many editorial - those might be useful to get out of our way, done 18:46:04 How about the chairs, or some person, does it 18:46:06 offline 18:46:13 ... we need to know which comments are serious and require serious work 18:46:14 and then we do a batch agreement 18:46:18 +??P21 18:46:20 can't the chairs do this sort of thing? I don't view it as a good thing to do now. 18:46:29 zakim, ??P21 is me 18:46:29 +schneid; got it 18:46:29 ... otherwise we may waste time on minor points and find the big ones too late 18:46:43 q+ 18:46:49 ack ivan 18:46:55 zakim, unmute me 18:46:55 schneid was not muted, schneid 18:46:57 chairs could just send back 'we're happy that you are happy' 18:47:00 Ian: chairs can go through the list, filter minor comments, editorial ones = no discussion required... etc. 18:47:07 ack schneid 18:47:10 chairs could assign editorial fixes to some editor 18:47:24 Yes 18:47:27 yes 18:47:29 q+ 18:47:33 Both sides do 18:47:35 yes, otherwise the rhs is not an ontology 18:47:37 Michael: there are still situations when you have entailment, does the right side need onto header 18:47:40 q? 18:47:47 ack msmith 18:47:48 Mike: RHS cannot exist as ontology without its header 18:47:58 zakim, mute me 18:47:58 schneid should now be muted 18:47:58 Tools are free to be more liberal of course, but then they aren't checking "ontologies" 18:48:17 Ian: we should then go through those comments offline, and focus/discuss the important ones 18:48:29 ... it's not that clear which one had attention until now 18:48:45 it's actually a little formal problem with the correspondence theorem, since ontology headers are not interpreted by the Direct Semantics... but I will solve this :) 18:48:46 q? 18:48:51 q+ 18:48:52 ... obvious thing - how to deal with points raised by TopQuadrant - quite a large one 18:48:52 number, please? 18:48:56 zakim, unmute me 18:48:56 bijan should no longer be muted 18:48:56