Meeting Record

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 21 November 2007

Present

Bijan Parsia, Rinke Hoekstra, Michael Smith, Markus Krötzsch, Martin Dzbor, Ian Horrocks, Uli Sattler, Alan Ruttenberg, Boris Motik, Sandro Hawke, Zhe Wu, Vit Novacek, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Peter Patel-Schneider, Alan Ruttenberg, Unknown Carsten, Evan Wallace

Chair

Ian Horrocks

Scribe

Rinke Hoekstra

IRC Log

Original

Resolutions

Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name link
F2F2 will be in Washington DC link

Topics

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

17:56:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc ←

17:56:58 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←

17:57:15 <Rinke> ah, that looks better

Rinke Hoekstra: ah, that looks better ←

17:57:25 <Rinke> ScribeNick: Rinke

(Scribe set to Rinke Hoekstra)

17:58:05 <MichaelSmith> rrsagent, make record public

Michael Smith: rrsagent, make record public ←

17:58:17 <Rinke> zakim, who's here

zakim, who's here ←

17:58:17 <Zakim> Rinke, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke, you need to end that query with '?' ←

17:58:23 <Rinke> zakim, who's here?

zakim, who's here? ←

17:58:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK ←

17:58:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

17:58:52 <Zakim> +??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←

17:59:17 <Zakim> +MartinD

Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD ←

17:59:20 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P6 is bmotik

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P6 is bmotik ←

17:59:20 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←

17:59:27 <Zakim> +IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←

17:59:31 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←

17:59:31 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←

17:59:33 <MartinD> zakim, mute me

Martin Dzbor: zakim, mute me ←

17:59:33 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted ←

18:00:05 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←

18:00:23 <Zakim> +??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←

18:00:49 <Zakim> +Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←

18:01:02 <Zakim> +??P12

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←

18:01:03 <uli> zakim, ??P9 is me

Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P9 is me ←

18:01:03 <Zakim> +uli; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←

18:01:09 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←

18:01:13 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P12 is bmotik

Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P12 is bmotik ←

18:01:13 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←

18:01:16 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←

18:01:16 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←

18:01:17 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←

18:01:39 <Zakim> +??P18

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←

18:01:48 <vit> Zakim, ??P18 is me

Vit Novacek: Zakim, ??P18 is me ←

18:01:48 <Zakim> +vit; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +vit; got it ←

18:01:58 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←

18:01:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit ←

18:02:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

18:02:27 <alanr> zakik, who is on the call?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakik, who is on the call? ←

18:02:35 <alanr> zakim, who is on the call?

Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, who is on the call? ←

18:02:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit ←

18:02:40 <Zakim> +??P19

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←

18:03:03 <alanr> calling in on cell phone too, for a few minutes, so I can fetch a coffee...

Alan Ruttenberg: calling in on cell phone too, for a few minutes, so I can fetch a coffee... ←

18:03:35 <sandro> "Zakim, ??19 is me"

Sandro Hawke: "Zakim, ??19 is me" ←

18:03:46 <Zakim> +??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←

18:03:50 <pfps> zakim, ??p20 is me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, ??p20 is me ←

18:03:50 <Zakim> +pfps; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←

18:03:51 <bcuencag> zakim, ??P19 is me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: zakim, ??P19 is me ←

18:03:52 <Zakim> +bcuencag; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencag; got it ←

18:03:54 <Zakim> +Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan_Ruttenberg ←

18:03:56 <pfps> zakim, mute me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, mute me ←

18:03:56 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps should now be muted ←

18:04:00 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←

18:04:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←

18:04:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted), ←

18:04:09 <Zakim> ... Alan_Ruttenberg, ??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Alan_Ruttenberg, ??P3 ←

18:04:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

18:04:12 <Carsten> zakim, ??p3 is me

Scribe problem: the name 'Carsten' does not match any of the 45 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Achille Fokoue Alan Ruttenberg Anne Cregan Bernardo Cuenca Grau Bijan Parsia Boris Motik Conrad Bock Deborah McGuinness Doug Lenat Elisa Kendall Enrico Franconi Evan Wallace Evren Sirin Fabian Neuhaus Fabien Gandon Giorgos Stamou Giorgos Stoilos Ian Horrocks Ivan Herman James Hendler Jeff Pan Jeremy Carroll Joanne Luciano Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Michael Sintek Michael Smith Olivier Corby Pascal Hitzler Peter Patel-Schneider Ratnesh Sahay Rinke Hoekstra Sandro Hawke Steve Battle Suzette Stoutenburg Tommie Meyer Uli Sattler Vassilis Tzouvaras Vipul Kashyap Vit Novacek Vojtech Svatek Zhe Wu Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Carsten: zakim, ??p3 is me ←

18:04:14 <Zakim> +Carsten; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Carsten; got it ←

18:04:20 <Carsten> zakim, mut me

Unknown Carsten: zakim, mut me ←

18:04:20 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut me', Carsten

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'mut me', Carsten ←

18:04:25 <Carsten> zakim, mute me

Unknown Carsten: zakim, mute me ←

18:04:25 <Zakim> Carsten should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Carsten should now be muted ←

18:04:33 <Rinke> zakim, mute me

zakim, mute me ←

18:04:33 <Zakim> Rinke should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should now be muted ←

18:04:48 <Zakim> +Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: +Evan_Wallace ←

18:06:05 <sandro> "Zakim, ??P11 is me"

Sandro Hawke: "Zakim, ??P11 is me" ←

18:06:08 <sandro> like that.

Sandro Hawke: like that. ←

18:06:17 <zhe> Zakim, ??P11 is me

Zhe Wu: Zakim, ??P11 is me ←

18:06:17 <Zakim> +zhe; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zhe; got it ←

18:06:26 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←

18:06:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted), ←

18:06:29 <Zakim> ... Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten (muted), Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten (muted), Evan_Wallace ←

18:06:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zhe, pfps, ewallace, alanr, jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng ←

18:07:04 <Rinke> IanH: covered Role call

Ian Horrocks: covered Role call ←

18:07:20 <sandro> scribenick: Rinke

18:07:25 <Rinke> ok, thanks

ok, thanks ←

18:07:30 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←

18:07:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc#T18-07-30

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2007/11/21-owl-irc#T18-07-30 ←

18:07:32 <Rinke> IanH: covered Role call

Ian Horrocks: covered Role call ←

18:07:43 <Rinke> ... any amendments?

... any amendments? ←

18:07:50 <Rinke> ... no amendments

... no amendments ←

18:07:56 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes ←

18:08:00 <bijan> Are we going to cover more issues if we finsih the one's listed

Bijan Parsia: Are we going to cover more issues if we finsih the one's listed ←

18:08:05 <bijan> ?

Bijan Parsia: ? ←

18:08:06 <jeremy> they were rather late

Jeremy Carroll: they were rather late ←

18:08:10 <sandro> Present: bijan, Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, IanH, uli, Alan, bmotik, Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace

Scribe problem: the name 'Carsten' does not match any of the 42 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Achille Fokoue Alan Ruttenberg Anne Cregan Bernardo Cuenca Grau Bijan Parsia Boris Motik Conrad Bock Deborah McGuinness Doug Lenat Elisa Kendall Enrico Franconi Evan Wallace Evren Sirin Fabian Neuhaus Fabien Gandon Giorgos Stamou Giorgos Stoilos Ian Horrocks Ivan Herman James Hendler Jeff Pan Jeremy Carroll Joanne Luciano Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Michael Sintek Michael Smith Olivier Corby Pascal Hitzler Peter Patel-Schneider Ratnesh Sahay Rinke Hoekstra Sandro Hawke Steve Battle Suzette Stoutenburg Tommie Meyer Uli Sattler Vassilis Tzouvaras Vipul Kashyap Vit Novacek Vojtech Svatek Zhe Wu

18:08:21 <pfps> Ian: previous *PREVIOUS* minutes

Ian Horrocks: previous *PREVIOUS* minutes [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←

18:08:30 <jeremy> (ok)

Scribe problem: the name 'jeremy' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown jeremy: (ok) ←

18:08:53 <MartinD> 7th

Martin Dzbor: 7th ←

18:08:54 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.14/Minutes

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.14/Minutes ←

18:09:00 <Zakim> -Alan_Ruttenberg

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan_Ruttenberg ←

18:09:06 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.07/Minutes ←

18:09:12 <alanr> back

Alan Ruttenberg: back ←

18:09:28 <Rinke> ewallace: previous previous minutes list me as evan wallface

Evan Wallace: previous previous minutes list me as evan wallface ←

18:10:08 <Zakim> +JeffP

Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffP ←

18:10:16 <Rinke> sandro: accept them pending the change

Sandro Hawke: accept them pending the change ←

18:10:38 <IanH> PROPOSED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name

PROPOSED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name ←

18:11:01 <MichaelSmith> +1 to accept previous previous minutes

Michael Smith: +1 to accept previous previous minutes ←

18:11:02 <Rinke> sandro: fixed them

Sandro Hawke: fixed them ←

18:11:12 <Rinke> ACCEPTED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name

RESOLVED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name ←

18:11:22 <bijan> I just updated the attendance list to add Uli

Bijan Parsia: I just updated the attendance list to add Uli ←

18:11:24 <bijan> Who was missing

Bijan Parsia: Who was missing ←

18:11:25 <Rinke> PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes

PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes ←

18:11:27 <jeremy> SANDRO - please reply to prtvate message

Unknown jeremy: SANDRO - please reply to prtvate message ←

18:11:31 <alanr> I approve

Alan Ruttenberg: I approve ←

18:11:34 <Rinke> sandro: haven't been there long enough to be reviewed

Sandro Hawke: haven't been there long enough to be reviewed ←

18:11:43 <pfps> +1 wait

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 wait ←

18:11:51 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

18:11:54 <Rinke> IanH: who has reviewed them?

Ian Horrocks: who has reviewed them? ←

18:11:58 <uli> i haven't

Uli Sattler: i haven't ←

18:11:58 <bijan> I just did

Bijan Parsia: I just did ←

18:12:07 <Rinke> had a quick look

had a quick look ←

18:12:12 <Rinke> IanH: leave them to next week

Ian Horrocks: leave them to next week ←

18:12:21 <Rinke> ... action item status?

... action item status? ←

18:12:28 <pfps> aren't minutes supposed to be ready in 48 hours or less?

Peter Patel-Schneider: aren't minutes supposed to be ready in 48 hours or less? ←

18:12:28 <Rinke> sandro: still mulling it over

Sandro Hawke: still mulling it over ←

18:12:40 <Rinke> IanH: move to next week

Ian Horrocks: move to next week ←

18:12:48 <Rinke> alanr: did the syntax document (Action 15)

Alan Ruttenberg: did the syntax document (ACTION-15) ←

18:13:00 <Rinke> IanH: action 17 qname approval

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-17 qname approval ←

18:13:17 <Rinke> MichaelSmith: email has been sent, asking about schema components status

Michael Smith: email has been sent, asking about schema components status ←

18:13:20 <sandro> yes, PFPS, that's the normal convention.    In this case the fault was mostly mine.   :-(

Sandro Hawke: yes, PFPS, that's the normal convention. In this case the fault was mostly mine. :-( ←

18:13:21 <MichaelSmith> In http://www.w3.org/mid/20071115.054530.235781452.pfps@research.bell-labs.com pfps found text in XML Schema spec http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes built-in datatypes and facets are both given URIs

Michael Smith: In http://www.w3.org/mid/20071115.054530.235781452.pfps@research.bell-labs.com pfps found text in XML Schema spec http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes built-in datatypes and facets are both given URIs ←

18:13:23 <alanr> Evan, are you willing to write up the steps to clean up the minutes? (on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions)

Alan Ruttenberg: Evan, are you willing to write up the steps to clean up the minutes? (on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions) ←

18:13:34 <Rinke> ... most of the issue has been addressed because peter found relevant parts

... most of the issue has been addressed because peter found relevant parts ←

18:13:47 <Rinke> ... action was done

... action was done ←

18:13:52 <Zakim> + +078910aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +078910aaaa ←

18:13:57 <Rinke> IanH: action 18, brain dump?

Ian Horrocks: ACTION-18, brain dump? ←

18:14:03 <alanr> continue

Alan Ruttenberg: continue ←

18:14:05 <Rinke> alanr: haven't dumped, postponed to next week

Alan Ruttenberg: haven't dumped, postponed to next week ←

18:14:18 <jeremy> Zakim, aaaa is me

Unknown jeremy: Zakim, aaaa is me ←

18:14:18 <Zakim> +jeremy; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jeremy; got it ←

18:14:21 <Rinke> IanH: f2f agenda

Ian Horrocks: f2f agenda ←

18:14:43 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda ←

18:14:44 <Rinke> IanH: have collected a list of items to be discussed at the f2f, please look at the agenda

Ian Horrocks: have collected a list of items to be discussed at the f2f, please look at the agenda ←

18:14:55 <bijan> F2F agenda: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda

Bijan Parsia: F2F agenda: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F.2007.12-Manchester/Agenda ←

18:15:04 <Rinke> ... currently on day 1 an overview of language features, imports

... currently on day 1 an overview of language features, imports ←

18:15:10 <bijan> Datatypes?

Bijan Parsia: Datatypes? ←

18:15:11 <Rinke> ... two other topics dl and full alignment

... two other topics dl and full alignment ←

18:15:29 <Rinke> ... if you have comments, topics, then you might want to suggest them

... if you have comments, topics, then you might want to suggest them ←

18:15:37 <pfps> suggest F2F topics how?

Peter Patel-Schneider: suggest F2F topics how? ←

18:15:37 <Rinke> ... the schedule is going to be quite tight!

... the schedule is going to be quite tight! ←

18:15:49 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ ←

18:15:54 <Rinke> alanr: where did you put the agenda?

Alan Ruttenberg: where did you put the agenda? ←

18:15:57 <pfps> zakim, unmute me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←

18:15:57 <Zakim> pfps should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps should no longer be muted ←

18:16:06 <JeffP> q?

Scribe problem: the name 'JeffP' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown JeffP: q? ←

18:16:11 <Rinke> IanH: link from meetings page, in the irc as well

Ian Horrocks: link from meetings page, in the irc as well ←

18:16:33 <Rinke> ... cannot guarantee that every topic will be added

... cannot guarantee that every topic will be added ←

18:16:49 <Rinke> alanr: if you feel that any knowledge needs to be made clear, we can put it in the tutorial

Alan Ruttenberg: if you feel that any knowledge needs to be made clear, we can put it in the tutorial ←

18:16:56 <bijan> What's the tutorial?

Bijan Parsia: What's the tutorial? ←

18:17:00 <bijan> When is it?

Bijan Parsia: When is it? ←

18:17:07 <Rinke> IanH: over the course of the next week we will fix the agenda?

Ian Horrocks: over the course of the next week we will fix the agenda? ←

18:17:14 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q- ←

18:17:18 <Rinke> (who's this?)

(who's this?) ←

18:17:21 <pfps> zakim, unmute me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←

18:17:21 <Zakim> pfps was not muted, pfps

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps was not muted, pfps ←

18:17:43 <Rinke> ewallace: would like to discuss the Declaration

Evan Wallace: would like to discuss the Declaration ←

18:17:50 <Rinke> ... just the discussion of it

... just the discussion of it ←

18:17:52 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:17:52 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

18:17:54 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+ ←

18:18:12 <Rinke> bijan: what's the tutorial?

Bijan Parsia: what's the tutorial? ←

18:18:31 <Rinke> alanr: orientation, looking who's coming, having a walkthrough of the specs, and doing a Q&A

Alan Ruttenberg: orientation, looking who's coming, having a walkthrough of the specs, and doing a Q&A ←

18:18:42 <Rinke> ... if you have ideas of what should be covered, let us know

... if you have ideas of what should be covered, let us know ←

18:18:59 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

18:18:59 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

18:19:00 <Rinke> bianr: is that the same as Overview of language features?

Bijan Parsia: is that the same as Overview of language features? ←

18:19:03 <Rinke> alanr: yes

Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←

18:19:09 <Rinke> IanH: are we done?

Ian Horrocks: are we done? ←

18:19:10 <sandro> chair: Ian

18:19:12 <bijan> s/bianr/bijan

18:19:29 <Rinke> IanH: alan and I will prepare a more concrete agenda

Ian Horrocks: alan and I will prepare a more concrete agenda ←

18:19:36 <Rinke> IanH: 2nd F2F meeting

Ian Horrocks: 2nd F2F meeting ←

18:19:37 <bijan> Perhaps, ian should send an email to solicit agenda topics for f2f?

Bijan Parsia: Perhaps, ian should send an email to solicit agenda topics for f2f? ←

18:19:43 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_proposals

Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_proposals ←

18:19:50 <Rinke> ... quite a few have commented already

... quite a few have commented already ←

18:20:05 <JeffP> Beijing

Unknown JeffP: Beijing ←

18:20:10 <Rinke> ... any people on the phone who would like to add their response before we come to a decision?

... any people on the phone who would like to add their response before we come to a decision? ←

18:20:16 <pfps> zakim, mute me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, mute me ←

18:20:16 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps should now be muted ←

18:20:30 <alanr> q+ to go back to scribing for a second

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to go back to scribing for a second ←

18:20:32 <Rinke> ... uli, boris, bernardo... you didn't respond yet?

... uli, boris, bernardo... you didn't respond yet? ←

18:20:40 <bmotik> No preference

Boris Motik: No preference ←

18:20:41 <uli> oups - i thought i had: preference for washington

Uli Sattler: oups - i thought i had: preference for washington ←

18:20:47 <bcuencag> beijing or DC

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: beijing or DC ←

18:20:48 <Rinke> ... any preference Washington, Bejing, Sydney

... any preference Washington, Bejing, Sydney ←

18:20:59 <Rinke> JeffP: beijing

Unknown JeffP: beijing ←

18:21:00 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:21:00 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

18:21:05 <MartinD> prob. washington for me

Martin Dzbor: prob. washington for me ←

18:21:10 <MichaelSmith> I prefer DC, at risk for Beijing, no to sydney

Michael Smith: I prefer DC, at risk for Beijing, no to sydney ←

18:21:23 <Carsten> I can probably neither come to Washington nor Beijing, but Sydney may be possible

Unknown Carsten: I can probably neither come to Washington nor Beijing, but Sydney may be possible ←

18:21:46 <vit> no preference for me for F2F2

Vit Novacek: no preference for me for F2F2 ←

18:21:52 <Rinke> alanr: will put the raw responses on the voting list

Alan Ruttenberg: will put the raw responses on the voting list ←

18:21:52 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

18:21:52 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

18:22:11 <Carsten> two

Unknown Carsten: two ←

18:22:17 <Rinke> IanH: it is overwhelming for Washington... two people Beijing, one Sydney, everybody else Washington

Ian Horrocks: it is overwhelming for Washington... two people Beijing, one Sydney, everybody else Washington ←

18:22:35 <Rinke> IanH: it's a no brainer... almost unanimous for Washington

Ian Horrocks: it's a no brainer... almost unanimous for Washington ←

18:22:47 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

18:22:50 <Rinke> ... peter can go ahead with the OWLED colocation thing? That's my proposal

... peter can go ahead with the OWLED colocation thing? That's my proposal ←

18:23:03 <IanH> PROPOSED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC

PROPOSED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC ←

18:23:07 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

18:23:09 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1 ←

18:23:10 <Rinke> +1

+1 ←

18:23:11 <MarkusK> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←

18:23:13 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1 ←

18:23:15 <MartinD> +1

Martin Dzbor: +1 ←

18:23:16 <ewallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1 ←

18:23:17 <MichaelSmith> +1

Michael Smith: +1 ←

18:23:31 <Rinke> IanH: lots of agreement, no disagreement

Ian Horrocks: lots of agreement, no disagreement ←

18:23:43 <sandro> RESOLVED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC

RESOLVED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC ←

18:23:48 <Rinke> IanH: finished with the admin

Ian Horrocks: finished with the admin ←

18:24:10 <JeffP> q+ have we decided the dates on F2F2?

Unknown JeffP: q+ have we decided the dates on F2F2? ←

18:24:12 <bijan> +1 to DC

Bijan Parsia: +1 to DC ←

18:24:15 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr ←

18:24:15 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to go back to scribing for a second

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to go back to scribing for a second ←

18:24:19 <Rinke> alanr: if Conrad could put his work on the cleanups on the wiki

Alan Ruttenberg: if Conrad could put his work on the cleanups on the wiki ←

18:24:23 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q- ←

18:24:23 <JeffP> q?

Unknown JeffP: q? ←

18:24:32 <Rinke> IanH: task forces stuff

Ian Horrocks: task forces stuff ←

18:24:49 <Rinke> IanH: it would be useful to get some feedback from them

Ian Horrocks: it would be useful to get some feedback from them ←

18:25:03 <Rinke> IanH: jeremy to say something about the UFDTF

Ian Horrocks: jeremy to say something about the UFDTF ←

18:25:05 <IanH> ?q

Ian Horrocks: ?q ←

18:25:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:25:10 <bijan> Yes he is :)

Bijan Parsia: Yes he is :) ←

18:25:27 <sandro> q+ testing zakim

Sandro Hawke: q+ testing zakim ←

18:25:28 <Rinke> jeremy: let me think

Unknown jeremy: let me think ←

18:25:31 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q? ←

18:25:34 <sandro> ack

Sandro Hawke: ack ←

18:25:34 <Rinke> ... can I go second?

... can I go second? ←

18:25:41 <sandro> ack testing

Sandro Hawke: ack testing ←

18:25:43 <sandro> ack zakim

Sandro Hawke: ack zakim ←

18:25:45 <Rinke> IanH: Rich annotations? Bijan?

Ian Horrocks: Rich annotations? Bijan? ←

18:25:53 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:25:53 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

18:26:07 <Rinke> bijan: I wrote up a proposal, some use cases, not finished

Bijan Parsia: I wrote up a proposal, some use cases, not finished ←

18:26:18 <Rinke> ... I ran them by several people, e.g. Alan Rector

... I ran them by several people, e.g. Alan Rector ←

18:26:40 <Rinke> ... somebody wanted to use them for patterns (value partitions)

... somebody wanted to use them for patterns (value partitions) ←

18:26:49 <Rinke> ... that's fine in my proposal, haven't written it up

... that's fine in my proposal, haven't written it up ←

18:27:01 <Rinke> ... (Jeremy?) using reification for axiom annotations

... (Jeremy?) using reification for axiom annotations ←

18:27:07 <jeremy> oooh

Unknown jeremy: oooh ←

18:27:23 <Rinke> ... I guess in that exchange with Boris one option would be to ... the anotations

... I guess in that exchange with Boris one option would be to ... the anotations ←

18:27:30 <alanr> +1 on importance of axiom annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 on importance of axiom annotations ←

18:27:35 <Rinke> ... would remove a lot of the usefullness of annotations

... would remove a lot of the usefullness of annotations ←

18:27:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:27:48 <alanr> q+ to mention issue with rich annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to mention issue with rich annotations ←

18:27:52 <Rinke> bijan: proposal is 90% done...

Bijan Parsia: proposal is 90% done... ←

18:28:03 <Rinke> ... would be nice to get some sense of what we're going to do with it

... would be nice to get some sense of what we're going to do with it ←

18:28:12 <Rinke> IanH: there is a fairly wellformed proposal on the table

Ian Horrocks: there is a fairly wellformed proposal on the table ←

18:28:17 <Rinke> ... please give some comments

... please give some comments ←

18:28:21 <MichaelSmith> the current proposal is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System correct?

Michael Smith: the current proposal is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System correct? ←

18:28:26 <bijan> Yes

Bijan Parsia: Yes ←

18:28:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:28:37 <Rinke> alanr: concerned about the multiple domains of interpretation/ multiple worlds/ multiple models aspect of it

Alan Ruttenberg: concerned about the multiple domains of interpretation/ multiple worlds/ multiple models aspect of it ←

18:28:41 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←

18:28:42 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to mention issue with rich annotations

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to mention issue with rich annotations ←

18:28:59 <Rinke> ... part of the concern was that it's fairly new, and unexplored... want a warm fuzzy feeling that it's well understood

... part of the concern was that it's fairly new, and unexplored... want a warm fuzzy feeling that it's well understood ←

18:29:10 <bcuencag> zakim, mute me

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: zakim, mute me ←

18:29:10 <Zakim> bcuencag should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencag should now be muted ←

18:29:18 <Rinke> ... second issue is that I don't know whether and how it would affect the RDF semantics

... second issue is that I don't know whether and how it would affect the RDF semantics ←

18:29:38 <Rinke> ... could you comment on how it affects the OWL Full aspect of it, in the RDF sense

... could you comment on how it affects the OWL Full aspect of it, in the RDF sense ←

18:29:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:29:48 <Rinke> bijan: I have not realised an RDF mapping

Bijan Parsia: I have not realised an RDF mapping ←

18:30:03 <Rinke> ... one could use different extensions: multiple files with pointers analogous to owl:imports

... one could use different extensions: multiple files with pointers analogous to owl:imports ←

18:30:12 <Rinke> ... minimal mutilation of everything, and easy to understand

... minimal mutilation of everything, and easy to understand ←

18:30:26 <Rinke> ... other than that: is that enough to get you going?

... other than that: is that enough to get you going? ←

18:30:43 <Rinke> alanr: yes, just to say where I am on it: how much of the proposal is dependent on that

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, just to say where I am on it: how much of the proposal is dependent on that ←

18:31:03 <Rinke> ... is that the central part of the proposal? If it's left out, what will be left?

... is that the central part of the proposal? If it's left out, what will be left? ←

18:31:20 <Rinke> bijan: it's a major part... another part is the idea to have blobs of annotations instead of nested or chained

Bijan Parsia: it's a major part... another part is the idea to have blobs of annotations instead of nested or chained ←

18:31:31 <Rinke> ... in the current anotations have to booted in the axiom

... in the current anotations have to booted in the axiom ←

18:31:51 <Rinke> ... a lot of people I talked to want to be able toa ssociate fairly elaborate structures to an entity or axiom

... a lot of people I talked to want to be able toa ssociate fairly elaborate structures to an entity or axiom ←

18:32:08 <jeremy> q+ to comment

Unknown jeremy: q+ to comment ←

18:32:16 <Rinke> IanH: until more people have had a chance to have a look at that... we might as well leave that

Ian Horrocks: until more people have had a chance to have a look at that... we might as well leave that ←

18:32:28 <alanr> we do have it on f2f

Alan Ruttenberg: we do have it on f2f ←

18:32:31 <Rinke> bijan: suggest that it becomes an official agenda item

Bijan Parsia: suggest that it becomes an official agenda item ←

18:32:40 <Rinke> IanH: action item to go and read it?

Ian Horrocks: action item to go and read it? ←

18:33:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:33:07 <Rinke> bijan: if I know its' going to be on the agenda I could (re)start an email discussion about this

Bijan Parsia: if I know its' going to be on the agenda I could (re)start an email discussion about this ←

18:33:14 <Rinke> sandro: no need to do an action item

Sandro Hawke: no need to do an action item ←

18:33:22 <Rinke> bijan: if its on the agenda, I will start a discussion

Bijan Parsia: if its on the agenda, I will start a discussion ←

18:33:33 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

18:33:33 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

18:33:41 <Rinke> IanH: why don't you start a discussion, and if there's a significant response to that we can put it on the agenda

Ian Horrocks: why don't you start a discussion, and if there's a significant response to that we can put it on the agenda ←

18:33:42 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:33:48 <Rinke> alanr: who are the stakeholders on this?

Alan Ruttenberg: who are the stakeholders on this? ←

18:33:56 <Rinke> ... and have an action item to review this?

... and have an action item to review this? ←

18:34:05 <Rinke> ... for them (that holds for me)

... for them (that holds for me) ←

18:34:11 <MichaelSmith> I'm a stakeholder and will review

Michael Smith: I'm a stakeholder and will review ←

18:34:13 <Rinke> IanH: anyone else?

Ian Horrocks: anyone else? ←

18:34:16 <pfps> I'll stick my hand up

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll stick my hand up ←

18:34:26 <bmotik> I will read it by next week. Does this cound as a review?

Boris Motik: I will read it by next week. Does this cound as a review? ←

18:34:34 <Rinke> alanr: more strongly, if you think it's important and you might object, you're a stakeholder

Alan Ruttenberg: more strongly, if you think it's important and you might object, you're a stakeholder ←

18:34:35 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←

18:34:49 <IanH> ack jeremy

Ian Horrocks: ack jeremy ←

18:34:49 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to comment

Zakim IRC Bot: jeremy, you wanted to comment ←

18:34:52 <Rinke> IanH: why not let jeremy speak, and let people mull over whether they are stakeholders

Ian Horrocks: why not let jeremy speak, and let people mull over whether they are stakeholders ←

18:35:11 <Rinke> jeremy: by having the OWL Full semantics in multiple documents is very complicated

Unknown jeremy: by having the OWL Full semantics in multiple documents is very complicated ←

18:35:17 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←

18:35:18 <Rinke> ... far away from owl 1.0

... far away from owl 1.0 ←

18:35:28 <alanr> q+ to see if I understand bijan's idea

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to see if I understand bijan's idea ←

18:35:40 <ewallace> could we ask for a decision on this next week

Evan Wallace: could we ask for a decision on this next week ←

18:35:42 <Rinke> ... out of court. More about 'lets' put some wacky stuff in' instead of a conservative improvement over 1.0

... out of court. More about 'lets' put some wacky stuff in' instead of a conservative improvement over 1.0 ←

18:35:55 <bmotik> If I've understood things correctly, the idea is not to have one semantics distributed over different documents (Bijan, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Boris Motik: If I've understood things correctly, the idea is not to have one semantics distributed over different documents (Bijan, please correct me if I'm wrong). ←

18:35:55 <Rinke> IanH: you're talking yourself into being a stakeholder

Ian Horrocks: you're talking yourself into being a stakeholder ←

18:36:04 <uli> jeremy, as usual, I can't understand what you are saying -- could you please talk louder?

Uli Sattler: jeremy, as usual, I can't understand what you are saying -- could you please talk louder? ←

18:36:15 <Rinke> jeremy: just articulating how a large part of the OWL community would feel about this move away from 1.0

Unknown jeremy: just articulating how a large part of the OWL community would feel about this move away from 1.0 ←

18:36:26 <Rinke> (me neither)

(me neither) ←

18:36:36 <bmotik> The idea is that you just have different, independent documents. They have nothing to do with each other. You can, however, query them together using, say, SPARQL.

Boris Motik: The idea is that you just have different, independent documents. They have nothing to do with each other. You can, however, query them together using, say, SPARQL. ←

18:36:46 <Rinke> jeremy: this seems a big change from 1.0 in terms of the OWL Full semantics

Unknown jeremy: this seems a big change from 1.0 in terms of the OWL Full semantics ←

18:36:53 <Rinke> ... sounds like a non starter (?)

... sounds like a non starter (?) ←

18:36:53 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:36:59 <IanH> ack alanr

Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←

18:36:59 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to see if I understand bijan's idea

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to see if I understand bijan's idea ←

18:37:06 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:37:12 <Rinke> alanr: by putting it into different files, we are just making things independently and unconnected

Alan Ruttenberg: by putting it into different files, we are just making things independently and unconnected ←

18:37:22 <Rinke> ... each separately is an OWL Full document

... each separately is an OWL Full document ←

18:37:22 <bijan> that's fine

Bijan Parsia: that's fine ←

18:37:37 <bijan> That's one reasonable way to go yes

Bijan Parsia: That's one reasonable way to go yes ←

18:37:41 <Rinke> ... that correct bijan?

... that correct bijan? ←

18:37:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:37:52 <Rinke> jeremy: strikes me as a 'big' change (in the eye of the beholder)

Unknown jeremy: strikes me as a 'big' change (in the eye of the beholder) ←

18:37:57 <Rinke> ... mouses and elephants

... mouses and elephants ←

18:38:08 <Rinke> IanH: clearly needs to be discussed in some more detail

Ian Horrocks: clearly needs to be discussed in some more detail ←

18:38:12 <bmotik> But this is really no change: each document is still interpreted as it was interpreted in OWL 1.0. You can use either Full or DL semantics, moreover.

Boris Motik: But this is really no change: each document is still interpreted as it was interpreted in OWL 1.0. You can use either Full or DL semantics, moreover. ←

18:38:15 <alanr> +1 to draft Jeremy as stakeholder :)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to draft Jeremy as stakeholder :) ←

18:38:22 <Rinke> ... perhaps jeremy and bijan could exchange some emails on this topic?

... perhaps jeremy and bijan could exchange some emails on this topic? ←

18:38:30 <Rinke> ... then the rest of us can eavesdrop

... then the rest of us can eavesdrop ←

18:38:34 <bijan> Fine

Bijan Parsia: Fine ←

18:38:36 <Rinke> ... how would that be?

... how would that be? ←

18:38:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:38:45 <alanr> I can be on call too...

Alan Ruttenberg: I can be on call too... ←

18:38:51 <alanr> if desired

Alan Ruttenberg: if desired ←

18:38:59 <Rinke> jeremy: not very enthusiastic, at least I get payd for it

Unknown jeremy: not very enthusiastic, at least I get payd for it ←

18:39:06 <Rinke> IanH: I'll take that as a yes

Ian Horrocks: I'll take that as a yes ←

18:39:13 <Rinke> ... move on to datatypes

... move on to datatypes ←

18:39:25 <bijan> There was a telecon!

Bijan Parsia: There was a telecon! ←

18:39:32 <Rinke> IanH: a lot of email traffic, no taskforce...

Ian Horrocks: a lot of email traffic, no taskforce... ←

18:39:33 <bijan> There is!

Bijan Parsia: There is! ←

18:39:42 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←

18:39:45 <Rinke> alanr: summarise where we came to in the first meeting

Alan Ruttenberg: summarise where we came to in the first meeting ←

18:39:48 <MichaelSmith> Cleaned up datatype telecon minutes at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DataType.Telecon.2007.11.19/Minutes

Michael Smith: Cleaned up datatype telecon minutes at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DataType.Telecon.2007.11.19/Minutes ←

18:39:48 <Rinke> (who's this?)

(who's this?) ←

18:39:55 <alanr> Mike smith

Alan Ruttenberg: Mike smith ←

18:40:35 <Rinke> MichaelSmith: two types of external datatypes... those that include ID's which can be externally referenced, and those that can't

Michael Smith: two types of external datatypes... those that include ID's which can be externally referenced, and those that can't ←

18:40:53 <Rinke> ... on the first we are waiting on the XML Schema wg

... on the first we are waiting on the XML Schema wg ←

18:40:54 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:41:07 <Rinke> (on the second)

(on the second) ←

18:41:16 <MichaelSmith> to modify structural specification to require the approach described in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-id-attr when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes

Michael Smith: to modify structural specification to require the approach described in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-id-attr when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes ←

18:41:29 <Rinke> ... moving forward on the approach outlined in the best practices document for the case where we do have IDs

... moving forward on the approach outlined in the best practices document for the case where we do have IDs ←

18:41:47 <Rinke> IanH: what kinds of things wouldn't we be able to do without ID's

Ian Horrocks: what kinds of things wouldn't we be able to do without ID's ←

18:41:48 <jeremy> referencing externalk datatypes defined by someone else

Unknown jeremy: referencing externalk datatypes defined by someone else ←

18:41:51 <alanr> big file of anonymous datatypes

Alan Ruttenberg: big file of anonymous datatypes ←

18:41:54 <alanr> external

Alan Ruttenberg: external ←

18:42:15 <Rinke> MikeSmith: perfectly valid xml schema exists without IDs... if you want to reuse such schema types you have a problem

Michael Smith: perfectly valid xml schema exists without IDs... if you want to reuse such schema types you have a problem ←

18:42:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:42:22 <Rinke> ... on the semantic web

... on the semantic web ←

18:42:27 <bijan> So one would have to cut and paste that datatype definition into a different file

Bijan Parsia: So one would have to cut and paste that datatype definition into a different file ←

18:42:39 <Rinke> ... if the author does have the semweb in mind, we have a solution.

... if the author does have the semweb in mind, we have a solution. ←

18:42:44 <Rinke> ... from the best practices

... from the best practices ←

18:42:52 <Rinke> IanH: we won't lose expressivity, just some rework

Ian Horrocks: we won't lose expressivity, just some rework ←

18:42:57 <alanr> literal inclusion of the file within the OWL file

Alan Ruttenberg: literal inclusion of the file within the OWL file ←

18:43:11 <bijan> Yes

Bijan Parsia: Yes ←

18:43:13 <Rinke> MikeSmith: yes, about reusing existing XML schema definitions

Michael Smith: yes, about reusing existing XML schema definitions ←

18:43:17 <Rinke> IanH: unary datatypes?

Ian Horrocks: unary datatypes? ←

18:43:31 <Rinke> MikeSmith: yes, the external datatypes only discussed about unary datatypes

Michael Smith: yes, the external datatypes only discussed about unary datatypes ←

18:43:40 <Rinke> ... one other thing, that we discussed

... one other thing, that we discussed ←

18:43:53 <Rinke> ... don't know if we want to put that in to a proposal first or...

... don't know if we want to put that in to a proposal first or... ←

18:44:03 <Rinke> IanH: try us with the other item first

Ian Horrocks: try us with the other item first ←

18:44:07 <jeremy> (at the telecon - some e-mail traffic on n-ary)

Unknown jeremy: (at the telecon - some e-mail traffic on n-ary) ←

18:44:20 <Rinke> MikeSmith: inline xml as opposed to what is in the member submission

Michael Smith: inline xml as opposed to what is in the member submission ←

18:44:21 <MichaelSmith> Issues with XML Schema in thread starting at http://www.w3.org/mid/474203BC.50307@hpl.hp.com and with attempted summary at http://www.w3.org/mid/1195586107.6320.52.camel@msmith-laptop

Michael Smith: Issues with XML Schema in thread starting at http://www.w3.org/mid/474203BC.50307@hpl.hp.com and with attempted summary at http://www.w3.org/mid/1195586107.6320.52.camel@msmith-laptop ←

18:44:28 <Rinke> ... I think it hit some kind of completion point

... I think it hit some kind of completion point ←

18:44:34 <Rinke> ... we understand what could be done,

... we understand what could be done, ←

18:44:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:44:53 <Rinke> ... if we want to use xml schema types inline, ...

... if we want to use xml schema types inline, ... ←

18:45:04 <Rinke> ... we need feedback from people about this

... we need feedback from people about this ←

18:45:08 <bijan> I got negative feedback from OWL API/Protege4 author Matthew Horridge

Bijan Parsia: I got negative feedback from OWL API/Protege4 author Matthew Horridge ←

18:45:10 <jeremy> I'll ask HP implementors

Unknown jeremy: I'll ask HP implementors ←

18:45:17 <Rinke> IanH: another case where people need to have a look and get feedback

Ian Horrocks: another case where people need to have a look and get feedback ←

18:45:19 <JeffP> q+ unary datatype

Unknown JeffP: q+ unary datatype ←

18:45:21 <bijan> I would expect negative feedback from TopQuadrent (Holger)

Bijan Parsia: I would expect negative feedback from TopQuadrent (Holger) ←

18:45:31 <bijan> Oh, xml schema syntax inline

Bijan Parsia: Oh, xml schema syntax inline ←

18:45:32 <Rinke> IanH: negative with respect to which option?

Ian Horrocks: negative with respect to which option? ←

18:45:36 <JeffP> q?

Unknown JeffP: q? ←

18:45:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:45:54 <Rinke> alanr: I was advocating taking this as our first point strictly from a simplicity point of view

Alan Ruttenberg: I was advocating taking this as our first point strictly from a simplicity point of view ←

18:46:03 <IanH> ack unary

Ian Horrocks: ack unary ←

18:46:08 <IanH> ack datatype

Ian Horrocks: ack datatype ←

18:46:14 <bijan> q+ to talk about schema syntax

Bijan Parsia: q+ to talk about schema syntax ←

18:46:17 <JeffP> q+

Unknown JeffP: q+ ←

18:46:22 <Rinke> ... doesn't require any vocabulary, might reduce the load at the expence of annoying but sufferable softare adaptations

... doesn't require any vocabulary, might reduce the load at the expence of annoying but sufferable softare adaptations ←

18:46:29 <pfps> well, what about all the corner cases in having inline XML Schema content?

Peter Patel-Schneider: well, what about all the corner cases in having inline XML Schema content? ←

18:46:37 <Rinke> IanH: first bijan, then jeffP

Ian Horrocks: first bijan, then jeffP ←

18:46:38 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:46:38 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

18:46:44 <IanH> ack bijan

Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←

18:46:44 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to talk about schema syntax

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to talk about schema syntax ←

18:47:01 <Rinke> bijan: I originally was thinking that using the XML schema syntax would be useful even with its limitations

Bijan Parsia: I originally was thinking that using the XML schema syntax would be useful even with its limitations ←

18:47:17 <Rinke> ... main argument against it: if we use XSD it restricts us in how we...

... main argument against it: if we use XSD it restricts us in how we... ←

18:47:24 <Rinke> ... would be apply new datatypes such as rational

... would be apply new datatypes such as rational ←

18:47:34 <Rinke> ... we could change it, but XSD guys might not like that

... we could change it, but XSD guys might not like that ←

18:47:56 <Rinke> ... unary datatypes with definitions, and totally different for n-ary: two different syntaxes

... unary datatypes with definitions, and totally different for n-ary: two different syntaxes ←

18:48:01 <Rinke> ... if we do it ourselves

... if we do it ourselves ←

18:48:09 <jeremy> how about noting the issue and coming back to it in a few months?

Unknown jeremy: how about noting the issue and coming back to it in a few months? ←

18:48:23 <Rinke> ... some advantages if we do it ourselves, otherwise we have to take the XSD WG into account

... some advantages if we do it ourselves, otherwise we have to take the XSD WG into account ←

18:48:41 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q? ←

18:48:42 <Rinke> ... if we make our home-made one it would probably be more uniform and more under control

... if we make our home-made one it would probably be more uniform and more under control ←

18:48:51 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

18:48:51 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

18:48:53 <Rinke> IanH: sounds like a convincing argument

Ian Horrocks: sounds like a convincing argument ←

18:48:55 <alanr> q+ to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax ←

18:48:59 <IanH> ack jeffp

Ian Horrocks: ack jeffp ←

18:49:00 <jeremy> agree with ian no premature decision

Unknown jeremy: agree with ian no premature decision ←

18:49:05 <Rinke> JeffP: question for mike... can we see the unions as well?

Unknown JeffP: question for mike... can we see the unions as well? ←

18:49:15 <Rinke> MikeSmith: there hasn't been a proposal to include unions no

Michael Smith: there hasn't been a proposal to include unions no ←

18:49:31 <Rinke> JeffP: if we don't have unions for datatypes. Won't we have too complicated datatypes

Unknown JeffP: if we don't have unions for datatypes. Won't we have too complicated datatypes ←

18:49:47 <bijan> With external datatypes they could use union,a faict

Bijan Parsia: With external datatypes they could use union,a faict ←

18:49:49 <Rinke> ... users might really want to reuse existing datatypes that they have

... users might really want to reuse existing datatypes that they have ←

18:50:07 <Rinke> IanH: if people don't use unions, then ...

Ian Horrocks: if people don't use unions, then ... ←

18:50:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:50:10 <Rinke> (sorry missed that)

(sorry missed that) ←

18:50:11 <uli> but we had counter-examples for this, Jeff!

Uli Sattler: but we had counter-examples for this, Jeff! ←

18:50:28 <IanH> ack alan

Ian Horrocks: ack alan ←

18:50:28 <Zakim> alanr, you wanted to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax

Zakim IRC Bot: alanr, you wanted to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax ←

18:50:29 <pfps> -1 to requiring XML syntax

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 to requiring XML syntax ←

18:50:30 <Rinke> alanr: might at least support the XML syntax. At least vs. might

Alan Ruttenberg: might at least support the XML syntax. At least vs. might ←

18:50:43 <JeffP> uli, could you send a pointer?

Unknown JeffP: uli, could you send a pointer? ←

18:51:08 <uli> Jeff, no - somewhere in the list of emails flying past

Uli Sattler: Jeff, no - somewhere in the list of emails flying past ←

18:51:11 <Rinke> IanH: if pople don't use unions, then the kinds of datatypes thay would be defining would be very simple, then not referencing

Ian Horrocks: if pople don't use unions, then the kinds of datatypes thay would be defining would be very simple, then not referencing ←

18:51:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:51:26 <Rinke> ... external datatypes using wouldn't be so much of an issue

... external datatypes using wouldn't be so much of an issue ←

18:51:35 <Rinke> IanH: Mike was saying something about a proposal

Ian Horrocks: Mike was saying something about a proposal ←

18:51:39 <JeffP> uli, which email in the mailing list?

Unknown JeffP: uli, which email in the mailing list? ←

18:51:43 <MichaelSmith> to modify structural specification to require the approach described in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-id-attr when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes

18:51:52 <Rinke> MikeSmith: proposal for modifying structural specificaiton

Michael Smith: proposal for modifying structural specificaiton ←

18:51:53 <bijan> +1 to this proposal

Bijan Parsia: +1 to this proposal ←

18:51:58 <jeremy> +1

Unknown jeremy: +1 ←

18:52:07 <jeremy> (look jeremy and bijan agree!)

Unknown jeremy: (look jeremy and bijan agree!) ←

18:52:14 <JeffP> :-)

Unknown JeffP: :-) ←

18:52:41 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

18:52:43 <Rinke> IanH: that must mean everyone else is on board as well

Ian Horrocks: that must mean everyone else is on board as well ←

18:52:51 <MartinD> sounds reasonable :-)

Martin Dzbor: sounds reasonable :-) ←

18:53:01 <Rinke> ... this would need to be formed into a proposal that we might resolve

... this would need to be formed into a proposal that we might resolve ←

18:53:09 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:53:09 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

18:53:16 <bijan> q+

Bijan Parsia: q+ ←

18:53:20 <jeremy> q+ to note normativity (lack of)

Unknown jeremy: q+ to note normativity (lack of) ←

18:53:21 <Rinke> alanr: is there a section that we could read, a section that says everything about it?

Alan Ruttenberg: is there a section that we could read, a section that says everything about it? ←

18:53:34 <Rinke> MikeSmith: the alternative would be to insert text into the structural document

Michael Smith: the alternative would be to insert text into the structural document ←

18:53:44 <alanr> I like this

Alan Ruttenberg: I like this ←

18:53:50 <bijan> +1 to doing the edit

Bijan Parsia: +1 to doing the edit ←

18:53:51 <pfps> -1 to this proposal, as OWL 1.1 already has an adequate solution

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 to this proposal, as OWL 1.1 already has an adequate solution ←

18:53:52 <alanr> that, ians suggestion

Alan Ruttenberg: that, ians suggestion ←

18:53:53 <jeremy> I prefer inserting text

Unknown jeremy: I prefer inserting text ←

18:53:58 <Rinke> IanH: add it to the document, and then come back with a proposal to accept the edit in the document

Ian Horrocks: add it to the document, and then come back with a proposal to accept the edit in the document ←

18:54:01 <bijan> q-

Bijan Parsia: q- ←

18:54:10 <pfps> zakim, unmute me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←

18:54:10 <Zakim> pfps should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps should no longer be muted ←

18:54:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:54:11 <Rinke> alanr: please comment in sandro's format

Alan Ruttenberg: please comment in sandro's format ←

18:54:14 <jeremy> q-

Unknown jeremy: q- ←

18:54:31 <Rinke> IanH: peter objects? but I guess that when you come back with the proposal to accept your editing...

Ian Horrocks: peter objects? but I guess that when you come back with the proposal to accept your editing... ←

18:54:39 <Rinke> pfps: the message stands for itself

Peter Patel-Schneider: the message stands for itself ←

18:54:58 <Rinke> ... owl 1.1 already has its own syntax solution which eliminates the need for hacked-up xml schema documents

... owl 1.1 already has its own syntax solution which eliminates the need for hacked-up xml schema documents ←

18:55:09 <Rinke> alanr: there is our own syntax for defining datatypes?

Alan Ruttenberg: there is our own syntax for defining datatypes? ←

18:55:20 <Rinke> ... a requirement is to be able to reuse other people's documents...

... a requirement is to be able to reuse other people's documents... ←

18:55:30 <jeremy> q+ to respond to peter

Unknown jeremy: q+ to respond to peter ←

18:55:30 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:55:33 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

18:55:33 <Zakim> bijan was not muted, bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan was not muted, bijan ←

18:55:36 <Rinke> pfps: there's a vanishingly small number of xsd documents in that form

Peter Patel-Schneider: there's a vanishingly small number of xsd documents in that form ←

18:55:40 <Rinke> alanr: bijan?

Alan Ruttenberg: bijan? ←

18:55:46 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:56:02 <Rinke> bijan: not so much about reusing... I would be perfectly reasonable to define my own datatypes in xml schema.

Bijan Parsia: not so much about reusing... I would be perfectly reasonable to define my own datatypes in xml schema. ←

18:56:19 <Rinke> ... I have reasons for doing them inline sometimes, and for doing them outline in some cases

... I have reasons for doing them inline sometimes, and for doing them outline in some cases ←

18:56:21 <IanH> ack jeremy

Ian Horrocks: ack jeremy ←

18:56:21 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to respond to peter

Zakim IRC Bot: jeremy, you wanted to respond to peter ←

18:56:21 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

18:56:23 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

18:56:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:56:35 <Rinke> jeremy: the data may well be useful for an owl or webservice application

Unknown jeremy: the data may well be useful for an owl or webservice application ←

18:56:42 <bmotik> XML Schema is a really complex specification, though.

Boris Motik: XML Schema is a really complex specification, though. ←

18:56:44 <JeffP> +1 for reuse xml schema datatypes

Unknown JeffP: +1 for reuse xml schema datatypes ←

18:56:56 <Rinke> ... since the rest of the world reads xml datatypes already, we might as well do it ourselves as well

... since the rest of the world reads xml datatypes already, we might as well do it ourselves as well ←

18:57:06 <Rinke> ... yes, it's awful, but that's life

... yes, it's awful, but that's life ←

18:57:19 <bmotik> I don't understand quite what exactly is mean with "reusing XML Schema datatypes".

Boris Motik: I don't understand quite what exactly is mean with "reusing XML Schema datatypes". ←

18:57:22 <Rinke> IanH: bijan and jeremy are saying that there isn't actually a huge cost to it?

Ian Horrocks: bijan and jeremy are saying that there isn't actually a huge cost to it? ←

18:57:38 <Rinke> ... we just need to add id's

... we just need to add id's ←

18:57:49 <Carsten> and by the user

Unknown Carsten: and by the user ←

18:57:50 <bijan> Boris, I currently can create a set of XML Schema datatypes using XML Schema

Bijan Parsia: Boris, I currently can create a set of XML Schema datatypes using XML Schema ←

18:57:51 <Rinke> alanr: the documents need to be understood by the reasoners that support them

Alan Ruttenberg: the documents need to be understood by the reasoners that support them ←

18:57:52 <bijan> Why not?

Bijan Parsia: Why not? ←

18:57:55 <bijan> Er

Bijan Parsia: Er ←

18:57:57 <bijan> Why not use that?

Bijan Parsia: Why not use that? ←

18:58:10 <Rinke> IanH: the added overhead for implementers is that they need to add support for xml datatypes

Ian Horrocks: the added overhead for implementers is that they need to add support for xml datatypes ←

18:58:20 <Rinke> pfps: you are going to require them to do that

Peter Patel-Schneider: you are going to require them to do that ←

18:58:32 <Rinke> MikeSmith: if you do reference them, you do it in the required way

Michael Smith: if you do reference them, you do it in the required way ←

18:58:33 <bmotik> But are these only the elementary data types (sting etc), or are we including the complex datatypes as well (elements, complexType, etc.)?

Boris Motik: But are these only the elementary data types (sting etc), or are we including the complex datatypes as well (elements, complexType, etc.)? ←

18:58:39 <jeremy> there may be an issue with some facets

Unknown jeremy: there may be an issue with some facets ←

18:58:57 <Rinke> alanr: add a delimited specific set of datatypes... but implementers could hook into the syntax to support more complex datatypes

Alan Ruttenberg: add a delimited specific set of datatypes... but implementers could hook into the syntax to support more complex datatypes ←

18:59:04 <bijan> bmotik, yes, the imported datatype must be legal in OWL 1.1

Bijan Parsia: bmotik, yes, the imported datatype must be legal in OWL 1.1 ←

18:59:05 <jeremy> simple types only

Unknown jeremy: simple types only ←

18:59:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

18:59:12 <JeffP> boris, I think we mean simple types only

Unknown JeffP: boris, I think we mean simple types only ←

18:59:15 <Rinke> MikeSmith: owl 1.0 docs are a little bit inconsistend (integer + string, another doc has a longer list)

Michael Smith: owl 1.0 docs are a little bit inconsistend (integer + string, another doc has a longer list) ←

18:59:29 <Rinke> ... we are not really clear on what's required for implementors and what's not

... we are not really clear on what's required for implementors and what's not ←

18:59:36 <bijan> But if an implemented handled something more expressive, e.g., union, it seems harmless to let them address it by Id

Bijan Parsia: But if an implemented handled something more expressive, e.g., union, it seems harmless to let them address it by Id ←

18:59:36 <Rinke> ... maybe clarifying that is important

... maybe clarifying that is important ←

18:59:51 <bmotik> Referencing an external .xsd document from OWL parsers might be a pain for implementors.

Boris Motik: Referencing an external .xsd document from OWL parsers might be a pain for implementors. ←

18:59:55 <Rinke> IanH: a side chat between boris and jeff, trying to clarify whether we are only talking SimpleTypes

Ian Horrocks: a side chat between boris and jeff, trying to clarify whether we are only talking SimpleTypes ←

19:00:04 <jeremy> q+

Unknown jeremy: q+ ←

19:00:13 <Rinke> ... I was presuming we're talking about more complex types, not unions, but facets

... I was presuming we're talking about more complex types, not unions, but facets ←

19:00:34 <Rinke> MikeSmith: when I was responding to Jeff, I was talking about inline... now we're talking about external datatypes

Michael Smith: when I was responding to Jeff, I was talking about inline... now we're talking about external datatypes ←

19:00:37 <bmotik> What is "external"?

Boris Motik: What is "external"? ←

19:00:47 <bijan> I.e., defined in an XML Schema file

Bijan Parsia: I.e., defined in an XML Schema file ←

19:00:56 <Rinke> ... I don't think there was a proposal to restrict what kinds of external xsd datatypes are allowed

... I don't think there was a proposal to restrict what kinds of external xsd datatypes are allowed ←

19:00:58 <bijan> q+ to say "no to complex stuff"

Bijan Parsia: q+ to say "no to complex stuff" ←

19:01:22 <bijan> +1 to jeremy's point about complex types

Bijan Parsia: +1 to jeremy's point about complex types ←

19:01:22 <bmotik> What exactly could you write in this external document? Could you do much more than just apply factes?

Boris Motik: What exactly could you write in this external document? Could you do much more than just apply factes? ←

19:01:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:01:28 <Rinke> IanH: reuse the external xsd in your owl file

Ian Horrocks: reuse the external xsd in your owl file ←

19:01:29 <IanH> ack jeremy

Ian Horrocks: ack jeremy ←

19:01:41 <Rinke> jeremy: complextype and simpletype are technical terms

Unknown jeremy: complextype and simpletype are technical terms ←

19:01:49 <Rinke> jeremy: a simpletype can be very complicated

Unknown jeremy: a simpletype can be very complicated ←

19:01:51 <bijan> I could define a type hierachy

Bijan Parsia: I could define a type hierachy ←

19:01:56 <Rinke> IanH: complicated rather than complex them

Ian Horrocks: complicated rather than complex them ←

19:02:02 <bijan> I coudl define complex types, but they wouldn't be usable in OWL

Bijan Parsia: I coudl define complex types, but they wouldn't be usable in OWL ←

19:02:04 <Rinke> ... does this answer boris' questions?

... does this answer boris' questions? ←

19:02:13 <bmotik> More or less.

Boris Motik: More or less. ←

19:02:17 <Rinke> ... perhaps Boris could say whether he understands everything now?

... perhaps Boris could say whether he understands everything now? ←

19:02:17 <bmotik> What is a type hierachy?

Boris Motik: What is a type hierachy? ←

19:02:20 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:02:24 <bijan> ack bijan

Bijan Parsia: ack bijan ←

19:02:25 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to say "no to complex stuff"

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to say "no to complex stuff" ←

19:02:53 <Rinke> bijan: we need to be a little bit careful wrt the types you are about to reference are types that are 'allowed'

Bijan Parsia: we need to be a little bit careful wrt the types you are about to reference are types that are 'allowed' ←

19:03:05 <Rinke> ... presumably no current reasoner can do anything with it

... presumably no current reasoner can do anything with it ←

19:03:18 <Rinke> ... the type that you reference must be definable in the inline syntax as well

... the type that you reference must be definable in the inline syntax as well ←

19:03:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:03:39 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

19:03:39 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

19:03:40 <Rinke> ... qnames wouldn't be types you can use and dereference from

... qnames wouldn't be types you can use and dereference from ←

19:03:46 <Rinke> IanH: clarified a lot for me

Ian Horrocks: clarified a lot for me ←

19:03:53 <bijan> Boris, I can define a string type that is a subclass of xsd:string

Bijan Parsia: Boris, I can define a string type that is a subclass of xsd:string ←

19:03:54 <Rinke> ... action on Mike

... action on Mike ←

19:03:56 <bijan> And subclasses of that

Bijan Parsia: And subclasses of that ←

19:03:59 <bijan> Etc.

Bijan Parsia: Etc. ←

19:04:04 <Rinke> ... to make a change that encapsulates his proposal

... to make a change that encapsulates his proposal ←

19:04:23 <Rinke> IanH: skipped over the user facing documents

Ian Horrocks: skipped over the user facing documents ←

19:04:27 <Zakim> +Vipul_Kashyap

Zakim IRC Bot: +Vipul_Kashyap ←

19:04:28 <bmotik> Wiki question: can we approve changes out-of-order?

Boris Motik: Wiki question: can we approve changes out-of-order? ←

19:04:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:04:39 <Rinke> jeremy: three telecons so far

Unknown jeremy: three telecons so far ←

19:04:56 <bmotik> For example, if two people make changes in one order, but we want to approve them in different order (or even roll-back one change), is this possible, and if so, how?

Boris Motik: For example, if two people make changes in one order, but we want to approve them in different order (or even roll-back one change), is this possible, and if so, how? ←

19:04:59 <Rinke> ... quite a lot of disagreement, the main point of the telecons was sharing and exchanging views

... quite a lot of disagreement, the main point of the telecons was sharing and exchanging views ←

19:05:01 <bijan> Re: numerics, I've been working on an explantion document in support of datatypes and n-ary predicates: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Numerics

Scribe problem: the name 'Re' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Re: numerics, I've been working on an explantion document in support of datatypes and n-ary predicates: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Numerics [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←

19:05:13 <Rinke> ... agreement on different users prefer docs in terms of their domain and use cases

... agreement on different users prefer docs in terms of their domain and use cases ←

19:05:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:05:23 <Rinke> ... risk that we like to produce more docs than we could

... risk that we like to produce more docs than we could ←

19:05:40 <Rinke> ... some members are keen on docs that represent user communities

... some members are keen on docs that represent user communities ←

19:05:53 <Rinke> ... another opinion is that we should produce very little

... another opinion is that we should produce very little ←

19:06:08 <Rinke> ... another point of disagreement is to do with what the overview should look like

... another point of disagreement is to do with what the overview should look like ←

19:06:12 <bijan> Well, part of that view (which is mine) is there is other venues which are, perhaps, more appropriate

Bijan Parsia: Well, part of that view (which is mine) is there is other venues which are, perhaps, more appropriate ←

19:06:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:06:22 <Rinke> ... input is owl 1.0: brief summary + list of constructs

... input is owl 1.0: brief summary + list of constructs ←

19:06:32 <Rinke> ... owl 1.1 summary which is much briefer

... owl 1.1 summary which is much briefer ←

19:06:46 <Rinke> ... not anywhere near resolving anytime soon

... not anywhere near resolving anytime soon ←

19:07:04 <Rinke> ... a further issue is that non-wg members have interesting work that they would like to contribute to the group

... a further issue is that non-wg members have interesting work that they would like to contribute to the group ←

19:07:24 <Rinke> ... how much can we interact with people not on the wg

... how much can we interact with people not on the wg ←

19:07:51 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:07:53 <Rinke> IanH: not really a constraint on interaction, but if the cdocuments reflect a lot of their input, then their names could not be on the docs

Ian Horrocks: not really a constraint on interaction, but if the cdocuments reflect a lot of their input, then their names could not be on the docs ←

19:08:05 <alanr> I thought it was Jeremy that was following up...

Alan Ruttenberg: I thought it was Jeremy that was following up... ←

19:08:11 <Rinke> Vipul: sent anemail to michel and ... as to what their expectations are

Scribe problem: the name 'Vipul' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Vipul: sent anemail to michel and ... as to what their expectations are ←

19:08:19 <jeremy> i asked sandro

Unknown jeremy: i asked sandro ←

19:08:37 <Rinke> IanH: fair to say, ongoing, progress is made, but significant issues?

Ian Horrocks: fair to say, ongoing, progress is made, but significant issues? ←

19:08:44 <alanr> also there are action items for UFDTF

Alan Ruttenberg: also there are action items for UFDTF ←

19:08:56 <Rinke> jeremy: for the overall taskforce, yes, I think we're making disappointingly small progress so far

Unknown jeremy: for the overall taskforce, yes, I think we're making disappointingly small progress so far ←

19:09:11 <alanr> Alan is more optimistic than Jeremy, but that may expose a flaw ...

Alan Ruttenberg: Alan is more optimistic than Jeremy, but that may expose a flaw ... ←

19:09:14 <Rinke> Vipul: one thing we did agree on is to identify the set of users that would

Unknown Vipul: one thing we did agree on is to identify the set of users that would ←

19:09:22 <alanr> in Alan's optimism

Alan Ruttenberg: in Alan's optimism ←

19:09:23 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:09:28 <Rinke> ... be targeted by these docs

... be targeted by these docs ←

19:09:45 <Rinke> ... CIO's Enterprise Architects, developers: list on an external website

... CIO's Enterprise Architects, developers: list on an external website ←

19:09:59 <alanr> Also started page trying to define who the targets of the documentation are

Alan Ruttenberg: Also started page trying to define who the targets of the documentation are ←

19:10:09 <Rinke> IanH: we'll be discussing this more on the F2F... hopefully more progress on these issues

Ian Horrocks: we'll be discussing this more on the F2F... hopefully more progress on these issues ←

19:10:12 <Rinke> ... then

... then ←

19:10:16 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Who_Reads_Our_Documents

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Who_Reads_Our_Documents ←

19:10:42 <Rinke> IanH: issues ... first is Issue 13: quotation and CURIES

Ian Horrocks: issues ... first is ISSUE-13: quotation and CURIES ←

19:10:52 <Rinke> sandro: CURIES as in Marie Curie

Sandro Hawke: CURIES as in Marie Curie ←

19:11:23 <Rinke> alanr: peter and I had a breef discussion about our original decision to use SPARQL

Alan Ruttenberg: peter and I had a breef discussion about our original decision to use SPARQL ←

19:11:28 <bijan> Nasty in the RDF/XML yes?

Bijan Parsia: Nasty in the RDF/XML yes? ←

19:11:29 <jeremy> Did sparql not use CURIE because it wasn't reaching REC any time soon?

Unknown jeremy: Did sparql not use CURIE because it wasn't reaching REC any time soon? ←

19:11:35 <Rinke> ... peter thought it was limited, suggested to go for full CURIES instead

... peter thought it was limited, suggested to go for full CURIES instead ←

19:11:43 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:11:47 <Rinke> ... no problem: a dependency as they're not a standard yet

... no problem: a dependency as they're not a standard yet ←

19:12:11 <Rinke> ... if others think that CURIES are good, then I'm happy too

... if others think that CURIES are good, then I'm happy too ←

19:12:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:12:20 <Rinke> IanH: are we in a position that we could resolve

Ian Horrocks: are we in a position that we could resolve ←

19:12:34 <Rinke> sandro: the state of CURIES, we don't know they're ever going to be a rec

Sandro Hawke: the state of CURIES, we don't know they're ever going to be a rec ←

19:12:42 <bijan> q+ to ask where would we use these

Bijan Parsia: q+ to ask where would we use these ←

19:12:48 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:12:50 <Rinke> pfps: we could pull the stuff out of the CURIE spec

Peter Patel-Schneider: we could pull the stuff out of the CURIE spec ←

19:13:01 <jeremy> pfps: we could copy/paste CURIE text if they do not reach REVC

Peter Patel-Schneider: we could copy/paste CURIE text if they do not reach REVC [ Scribe Assist by Unknown jeremy ] ←

19:13:06 <Rinke> alanr: someone from the group suggested we might monitor this

Alan Ruttenberg: someone from the group suggested we might monitor this ←

19:13:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:13:21 <Rinke> ... and do a fallback when it turns out to not become a rec

... and do a fallback when it turns out to not become a rec ←

19:13:28 <jeremy> I'll Dave tomorrow

Unknown jeremy: I'll Dave tomorrow ←

19:13:38 <jeremy> ^ask^

Unknown jeremy: ^ask^ ←

19:13:47 <bijan> ack bijan

Bijan Parsia: ack bijan ←

19:13:49 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask where would we use these

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to ask where would we use these ←

19:13:54 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:13:58 <Rinke> sandro: in RIF there was some discussion, in the end decided not to... not relevant...?

Sandro Hawke: in RIF there was some discussion, in the end decided not to... not relevant...? ←

19:14:17 <jeremy> q+

Unknown jeremy: q+ ←

19:14:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:14:22 <Rinke> bijan: if CURIES are not legal element names, then how would this effect the RDF serialisation

Bijan Parsia: if CURIES are not legal element names, then how would this effect the RDF serialisation ←

19:14:34 <MichaelSmith> I see CURIs in RIF BLD at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-10-30#head-7c71117f168aef019182ae8e8ad8bc542c76868d

Michael Smith: I see CURIs in RIF BLD at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-10-30#head-7c71117f168aef019182ae8e8ad8bc542c76868d ←

19:14:42 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

19:14:42 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

19:14:43 <Rinke> ... probably would require additional processing

... probably would require additional processing ←

19:14:44 <sandro> right -- CURIE in AS, or in some of the serializations?

Sandro Hawke: right -- CURIE in AS, or in some of the serializations? ←

19:15:00 <bijan> That doesn't always work

Bijan Parsia: That doesn't always work ←

19:15:12 <Rinke> alanr: if the local part is not a valid part of a qname then it's expanded to an escaped uri

Alan Ruttenberg: if the local part is not a valid part of a qname then it's expanded to an escaped uri ←

19:15:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:15:19 <bijan> no that doesn't make sense

Bijan Parsia: no that doesn't make sense ←

19:15:26 <Rinke> ... I don't create extra namespaces, I fully quote them (in angle brackets)

... I don't create extra namespaces, I fully quote them (in angle brackets) ←

19:15:30 <IanH> ack jeremy

Ian Horrocks: ack jeremy ←

19:15:45 <bijan> Yes, i.e., properties

Bijan Parsia: Yes, i.e., properties ←

19:15:50 <alanr> pmid:1234 -> <http://purl.org/.../1234>

Scribe problem: the name 'pmid' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown pmid: 1234 -> <http://purl.org/.../1234> [ Scribe Assist by Alan Ruttenberg ] ←

19:15:51 <Rinke> jeremy: certain uris that might occur as property uris can not be serialised as RDF uris

Unknown jeremy: certain uris that might occur as property uris can not be serialised as RDF uris ←

19:16:05 <bmotik> Metaquestion: do we expect people to use the functional-style syntax directly? If not (i.e., if this syntax is used just in the spec), do we care about abbreviating URIs?

Scribe problem: the name 'Metaquestion' does not match any of the 20 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Bijan Parsia Rinke Hoekstra Michael Smith Markus Krötzsch Martin Dzbor Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler Alan Ruttenberg Boris Motik Sandro Hawke Zhe Wu Vit Novacek Bernardo Cuenca Grau Peter Patel-Schneider Alan Ruttenberg Unknown Carsten Evan Wallace Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Metaquestion: do we expect people to use the functional-style syntax directly? If not (i.e., if this syntax is used just in the spec), do we care about abbreviating URIs? [ Scribe Assist by Boris Motik ] ←

19:16:06 <bijan> q+ to reply

Bijan Parsia: q+ to reply ←

19:16:10 <Rinke> ... in alan's cases we're talking about subject/object uris, in that case no problem

... in alan's cases we're talking about subject/object uris, in that case no problem ←

19:16:17 <alanr> can always use description/about

Alan Ruttenberg: can always use description/about ←

19:16:24 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

19:16:26 <Rinke> ... in predicate position some curies cannot be serialised in RDF/XML

... in predicate position some curies cannot be serialised in RDF/XML ←

19:16:30 <bijan> zakim, ack bijan

Bijan Parsia: zakim, ack bijan ←

19:16:30 <Zakim> unmuting bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: unmuting bijan ←

19:16:31 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to reply

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to reply ←

19:16:32 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue

Zakim IRC Bot: I see no one on the speaker queue ←

19:16:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:16:40 <Rinke> ... this a known limitation in RDF/XML, and we should ignore it

... this a known limitation in RDF/XML, and we should ignore it ←

19:16:52 <Rinke> bijan: that's fine jeremy, that's what I wanted to know

Bijan Parsia: that's fine jeremy, that's what I wanted to know ←

19:17:01 <Rinke> ... if that's ok with you, then I'm fine with it

... if that's ok with you, then I'm fine with it ←

19:17:09 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

19:17:09 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

19:17:14 <Rinke> jeremy: RDF/XML went to REC with this as a known bug

Unknown jeremy: RDF/XML went to REC with this as a known bug ←

19:17:37 <sandro> q+ to repeat the AS vs CS quest

Sandro Hawke: q+ to repeat the AS vs CS quest ←

19:17:40 <IanH> PROPOSED: to base abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES

PROPOSED: to base abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES ←

19:17:40 <Rinke> alanr: you can already use an arbitrary URI already in OWL 1.1 which cannot be serialised as RDf

Alan Ruttenberg: you can already use an arbitrary URI already in OWL 1.1 which cannot be serialised as RDf ←

19:17:53 <Rinke> jeremy: not an OWL problem, an RDF problem

Unknown jeremy: not an OWL problem, an RDF problem ←

19:17:53 <bijan> But curies don't help in RDF/XML *at all*

Bijan Parsia: But curies don't help in RDF/XML *at all* ←

19:18:01 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:18:07 <Rinke> sandro: is this just about the abstract syntax?

Sandro Hawke: is this just about the abstract syntax? ←

19:18:16 <Rinke> alanr: only effect the functional syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: only effect the functional syntax ←

19:18:26 <jeremy> I would perhaps change my position after discussion with colleagues (dave and andy)

Unknown jeremy: I would perhaps change my position after discussion with colleagues (dave and andy) ←

19:18:38 <bmotik> functional sytax

Boris Motik: functional sytax ←

19:18:42 <bmotik> structural specification

Boris Motik: structural specification ←

19:18:43 <Rinke> IanH: structural syntax

Ian Horrocks: structural syntax ←

19:18:48 <Rinke> alanr: functional style syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: functional style syntax ←

19:18:49 <IanH> PROPOSED: to base functional style syntax abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES

PROPOSED: to base functional style syntax abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES ←

19:18:56 <alanr> "Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax"

Alan Ruttenberg: "Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax" ←

19:18:59 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1 ←

19:19:06 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←

19:19:19 <Rinke> jeremy: have you seen my notes? I might change my vote tomorrow by email

Unknown jeremy: have you seen my notes? I might change my vote tomorrow by email ←

19:19:34 <alanr> put it on agenda next week

Alan Ruttenberg: put it on agenda next week ←

19:19:39 <Rinke> IanH: what's the best way forward? Resolve this now, backtrack? Push it to next week?

Ian Horrocks: what's the best way forward? Resolve this now, backtrack? Push it to next week? ←

19:20:01 <Rinke> IanH: put it on the agenda for next week. You'll be in a position to give a definitive yay or nay

Ian Horrocks: put it on the agenda for next week. You'll be in a position to give a definitive yay or nay ←

19:20:13 <Rinke> IanH: we resolved that we will resolve something

Ian Horrocks: we resolved that we will resolve something ←

19:20:24 <Rinke> IanH: issue 2 is the final thing on the agenda

Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-2 is the final thing on the agenda ←

19:20:41 <Rinke> ... we already resolved that we fix up this problem for alldisjoint wrt the RDF mapping

... we already resolved that we fix up this problem for alldisjoint wrt the RDF mapping ←

19:21:19 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:21:30 <Rinke> ... the question arose as to whether we make the language symmetrical and add constructs for things in the structural syntax that use lists

... the question arose as to whether we make the language symmetrical and add constructs for things in the structural syntax that use lists ←

19:21:35 <Zakim> -MartinD

Zakim IRC Bot: -MartinD ←

19:21:45 <bmotik> differentindividual

Boris Motik: differentindividual ←

19:21:47 <Rinke> ... boris what are the other ones

... boris what are the other ones ←

19:21:49 <bmotik> sameindividual

Boris Motik: sameindividual ←

19:21:55 <Rinke> pfps: union, intersection

Peter Patel-Schneider: union, intersection ←

19:22:00 <bijan> ?

Bijan Parsia: ? ←

19:22:08 <bmotik> Union and intersection are already OK

Boris Motik: Union and intersection are already OK ←

19:22:09 <bijan> Doesn't union and intersection allready nary

Bijan Parsia: Doesn't union and intersection allready nary ←

19:22:13 <alanr> +1 to differentindividual

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to differentindividual ←

19:22:16 <Rinke> IanH: really correct peter?

Ian Horrocks: really correct peter? ←

19:22:31 <Rinke> ... in RDF they are mapped to multiple pairwise

... in RDF they are mapped to multiple pairwise ←

19:22:32 <bmotik> It is equivalentClasses, equaivalentProperties, disjointClasses, disjointProperties

Boris Motik: It is equivalentClasses, equaivalentProperties, disjointClasses, disjointProperties ←

19:22:44 <Rinke> alanr: alldifferent was already in the first version?

Alan Ruttenberg: alldifferent was already in the first version? ←

19:23:01 <Rinke> pfps: if you want to go for a same-sized translation, there are only two that are lists

Peter Patel-Schneider: if you want to go for a same-sized translation, there are only two that are lists ←

19:23:03 <bmotik> sameIndividaul, differentIndividuals

Boris Motik: sameIndividaul, differentIndividuals ←

19:23:10 <alanr> <owl:AllDifferent>

Alan Ruttenberg: <owl:AllDifferent> ←

19:23:12 <alanr>   <owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">

Alan Ruttenberg: <owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection"> ←

19:23:14 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Don_Giovanni"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Don_Giovanni"/> ←

19:23:14 <jeremy> ifferentIndividuals(iID1 … iIDn)

Unknown jeremy: ifferentIndividuals(iID1 … iIDn) ←

19:23:14 <jeremy> _:x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent .

Scribe problem: the name '_' is ambiguous. It could be any of: RRSAgent IRC Bot Michael Smith Alan Ruttenberg Martin Dzbor Rinke Hoekstra Trackbot IRC Bot Unknown Carsten Vit Novacek Boris Motik Peter Patel-Schneider Bernardo Cuenca Grau Evan Wallace Sandro Hawke Markus Krötzsch Bijan Parsia Zhe Wu Zakim IRC Bot Ian Horrocks Uli Sattler . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown _: x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent . [ Scribe Assist by Unknown jeremy ] ←

19:23:15 <jeremy> 04_:x 04owl:distinctMembers04 T(SEQ iID04104 … iID04n04) .

Unknown jeremy: 04_:x 04owl:distinctMembers04 T(SEQ iID04104 … iID04n04) . ←

19:23:16 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Nozze_di_Figaro"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Nozze_di_Figaro"/> ←

19:23:17 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Cosi_fan_tutte"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Cosi_fan_tutte"/> ←

19:23:19 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Tosca"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Tosca"/> ←

19:23:20 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Turandot"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Turandot"/> ←

19:23:22 <alanr>     <Opera rdf:about="#Salome"/>

Alan Ruttenberg: <Opera rdf:about="#Salome"/> ←

19:23:23 <alanr>   </owl:distinctMembers>

Alan Ruttenberg: </owl:distinctMembers> ←

19:23:25 <alanr> </owl:AllDifferent>

Alan Ruttenberg: </owl:AllDifferent> ←

19:23:25 <jeremy> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.1

Unknown jeremy: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.1 ←

19:23:25 <bmotik> It does not enable roundtripping.

Boris Motik: It does not enable roundtripping. ←

19:23:26 <alanr> so differentindividuals already handled

Alan Ruttenberg: so differentindividuals already handled ←

19:23:27 <Rinke> IanH: not a direct syntax as we have for alldisjoint

Ian Horrocks: not a direct syntax as we have for alldisjoint ←

19:23:38 <Rinke> pfps: the only rationale for having a direct syntax for some of them  is

Peter Patel-Schneider: the only rationale for having a direct syntax for some of them is ←

19:23:57 <Rinke> that the obvious translation is n^2 and the non-obvious translation needs a trick

that the obvious translation is n^2 and the non-obvious translation needs a trick ←

19:24:09 <Rinke> IanH: boris says that it makes the problem for roundtripping

Ian Horrocks: boris says that it makes the problem for roundtripping ←

19:24:24 <alanr> do we have specification of what roundtripping means? Is it an agreed upon requirement?

Alan Ruttenberg: do we have specification of what roundtripping means? Is it an agreed upon requirement? ←

19:24:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:24:42 <uli> how big is this problem?

Uli Sattler: how big is this problem? ←

19:24:43 <bijan> No

Bijan Parsia: No ←

19:24:44 <bmotik> For backwards-compatibility we might translate things as usual only if n =2

Boris Motik: For backwards-compatibility we might translate things as usual only if n =2 ←

19:24:53 <bmotik> If n != 2, we might use the new mapping

Boris Motik: If n != 2, we might use the new mapping ←

19:25:17 <bijan> zakim, unmute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←

19:25:17 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←

19:25:22 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:25:32 <Rinke> pfps: we always have a roundtrip from functional to RDF and back, but if we already have a document in RDF then we cannot do roundtripping unless

Peter Patel-Schneider: we always have a roundtrip from functional to RDF and back, but if we already have a document in RDF then we cannot do roundtripping unless ←

19:25:41 <bmotik> Sure, but if you have an OWL 1.1 RDF document (with new vocabulary), then things should be round-trippable.

Boris Motik: Sure, but if you have an OWL 1.1 RDF document (with new vocabulary), then things should be round-trippable. ←

19:25:56 <Rinke> ... we have a direct mapping

... we have a direct mapping ←

19:26:02 <bmotik> q+

Boris Motik: q+ ←

19:26:05 <Rinke> pfps: quantitative vs. qualitative improvement

Peter Patel-Schneider: quantitative vs. qualitative improvement ←

19:26:10 <bmotik> zakim, unmute me

Boris Motik: zakim, unmute me ←

19:26:10 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←

19:26:14 <Rinke> pfps: reason is bloat

Peter Patel-Schneider: reason is bloat ←

19:26:14 <jeremy> +1 to pfps

Unknown jeremy: +1 to pfps ←

19:26:16 <bijan> zakim, mute me

Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←

19:26:16 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←

19:26:20 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←

19:26:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:26:25 <alanr> +1 to pfps too

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 to pfps too ←

19:26:32 <sandro> Arg -- wrong button

Sandro Hawke: Arg -- wrong button ←

19:26:40 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q? ←

19:26:44 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q- ←

19:26:48 <jeremy> sandro left call

Unknown jeremy: sandro left call ←

19:26:50 <bijan> sandro hung up

Bijan Parsia: sandro hung up ←

19:27:03 <sandro> I pressed hangup instead of unmute.

Sandro Hawke: I pressed hangup instead of unmute. ←

19:27:07 <Rinke> boris:  I understand the point regarding the bload

Boris Motik: I understand the point regarding the bload ←

19:27:17 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←

19:27:21 <alanr> roundtripping not possible given backwards compatibility

Alan Ruttenberg: roundtripping not possible given backwards compatibility ←

19:27:31 <Rinke> ... if we now extend the language with this new construct... new ontology, serialise as RDF then we can do roundtrip

... if we now extend the language with this new construct... new ontology, serialise as RDF then we can do roundtrip ←

19:27:40 <alanr> I don't know if it matters

Alan Ruttenberg: I don't know if it matters ←

19:27:47 <Rinke> ... if you use owl 1.1  RDF and owl 1.1 AS then things should be round-trippable

... if you use owl 1.1 RDF and owl 1.1 AS then things should be round-trippable ←

19:27:57 <Rinke> IanH: this wasn't the simple discussion I was anticipating

Ian Horrocks: this wasn't the simple discussion I was anticipating ←

19:28:01 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me

Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←

19:28:01 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←

19:28:13 <Rinke> ... are not going to get through this in the remaining 3 minutes of this telecon

... are not going to get through this in the remaining 3 minutes of this telecon ←

19:28:25 <Rinke> ... aim for email exchange to clarify the matter

... aim for email exchange to clarify the matter ←

19:28:34 <Rinke> IanH: last item.... aob?

Ian Horrocks: last item.... aob? ←

19:28:37 <Rinke> ... any of it?

... any of it? ←

19:28:49 <JeffP> +1 bye

Unknown JeffP: +1 bye ←

19:28:51 <uli> doe and dusted

Uli Sattler: doe and dusted ←

19:28:52 <Zakim> -Vipul_Kashyap

Zakim IRC Bot: -Vipul_Kashyap ←

19:28:56 <Rinke> IanH: declare us finished for this week

Ian Horrocks: declare us finished for this week ←

19:28:57 <uli> bye bye

Uli Sattler: bye bye ←

19:28:57 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: -Evan_Wallace ←

19:28:58 <Zakim> -jeremy

Zakim IRC Bot: -jeremy ←

19:28:59 <bmotik> bye

Boris Motik: bye ←

19:28:59 <Zakim> -bijan

Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←

19:29:00 <MarkusK> bye

Markus Krötzsch: bye ←

19:29:02 <Zakim> -Carsten

Zakim IRC Bot: -Carsten ←

19:29:03 <jeremy> bye

Unknown jeremy: bye ←

19:29:03 <Rinke> yep

yep ←

19:29:03 <Zakim> -MIchaelSmith

Zakim IRC Bot: -MIchaelSmith ←

19:29:05 <Zakim> -JeffP

Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP ←

19:29:05 <bijan> -bye

Bijan Parsia: -bye ←

19:29:06 <Zakim> -uli

Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←

19:29:06 <zhe> bye

Zhe Wu: bye ←

19:29:07 <Zakim> -vit

Zakim IRC Bot: -vit ←

19:29:07 <Zakim> -MarkusK

Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK ←

19:29:08 <Rinke> zakim, unmute me

zakim, unmute me ←

19:29:09 <Zakim> Rinke should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Rinke should no longer be muted ←

19:29:11 <Zakim> -bcuencag

Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencag ←

19:29:22 <Zakim> -bmotik

Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←

19:29:31 <Zakim> -pfps

Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←

19:30:00 <Zakim> -IanH

Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←

19:30:38 <Zakim> -zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: -zhe ←

19:31:06 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions ←

19:31:16 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.21/Minutes

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.11.21/Minutes ←

19:31:19 <alanr> Remove Zakim chit chat such as people entering, leaving, q+, acks, who is here, etc.

Alan Ruttenberg: Remove Zakim chit chat such as people entering, leaving, q+, acks, who is here, etc. ←

19:31:21 <alanr> Move scribes own comments (as opposed) into irc syntax

Alan Ruttenberg: Move scribes own comments (as opposed) into irc syntax ←

19:31:23 <alanr> Sometimes reorder to make discussions more coherent

Alan Ruttenberg: Sometimes reorder to make discussions more coherent ←

19:31:25 <alanr> Add section headers

Alan Ruttenberg: Add section headers ←

19:32:37 <alanr> Adding {{Action|4}} and {{Issue|23}}

Alan Ruttenberg: Adding {{Action|4}} and {{Issue|23}} ←

19:35:04 <Rinke> %7B

%7B ←

19:35:37 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←

19:35:39 <Zakim> -Alan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Alan ←

19:35:40 <Zakim> SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended ←

19:35:41 <Zakim> Attendees were Rinke, bijan, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, bmotik, IanH, Alan, uli, Sandro, vit, pfps, bcuencag, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace, zhe, JeffP, +078910aaaa,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Rinke, bijan, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, bmotik, IanH, Alan, uli, Sandro, vit, pfps, bcuencag, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace, zhe, JeffP, +078910aaaa, ←

19:35:43 <Zakim> ... jeremy, Vipul_Kashyap

Zakim IRC Bot: ... jeremy, Vipul_Kashyap ←

Formatted by CommonScribe