00:00:00 <scribenick> PRESENT: Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted), ivan, ewallace, baojie, Zhe, m_schnei, bparsia
00:00:00 <scribenick> REGRETS: Markus Krötzsch, Elisa Kendall, Achille Fokoue, Evan Wallace
00:00:00 <scribenick> CHAIR: IanH
16:45:50 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/03-owl-irc ←
16:46:26 <IanH> IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.03/Agenda
Ian Horrocks: IanH has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.09.03/Agenda ←
16:46:50 <IanH> Zakim, this will be owlwg
Ian Horrocks: Zakim, this will be owlwg ←
16:46:50 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes ←
16:47:03 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
16:58:07 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:58:12 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
16:58:15 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:59:24 <Zakim> + +0190827aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0190827aaaa ←
16:59:28 <MartinD> zakim, aaaa is me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, aaaa is me ←
16:59:28 <Zakim> +MartinD; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MartinD; got it ←
16:59:32 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
16:59:35 <MartinD> zakim, mute me
Martin Dzbor: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:35 <Zakim> MartinD should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MartinD should now be muted ←
16:59:40 <uli> zakim, ??P4 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
16:59:40 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
16:59:44 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
16:59:44 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
16:59:55 <uli> scribenick uli
Uli Sattler: scribenick uli ←
17:00:39 <uli> scribenick: uli
(Scribe set to Uli Sattler)
17:00:44 <Zakim> +IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←
17:00:57 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:00:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH ←
17:01:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:01:06 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
17:01:10 <uli> ScribeNick: uli
17:01:40 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
17:01:44 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
17:01:44 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau; got it ←
17:02:01 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau ←
17:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:02:05 <Zakim> +StuartTaylor
Zakim IRC Bot: +StuartTaylor ←
17:02:16 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
17:02:16 <JeffP> zakim, StuartTaylor is me
Jeff Pan: zakim, StuartTaylor is me ←
17:02:17 <Zakim> +JeffP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +JeffP; got it ←
17:02:22 <bmotik> Zakim. ??P15 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim. ??P15 is me ←
17:02:32 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:32 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:02:34 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, msmith, MartinD (muted), uli (muted), IanH, Sandro, bcuencagrau, JeffP, bmotik (muted) ←
17:02:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, JeffP, bcuencagrau, sandro, pfps, msmith, uli, RRSAgent, Zakim, IanH, bmotik, MartinD, ewallace, trackbot ←
17:02:59 <ivan> zakim, code?
Ivan Herman: zakim, code? ←
17:02:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 69594 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan ←
17:02:59 <uli> sure
sure ←
17:03:29 <uli> Topic: Admin
17:03:29 <uli> subtopic: Agenda Amendments
17:03:34 <uli> none
none ←
17:03:44 <Zakim> +Danny
Zakim IRC Bot: +Danny ←
17:03:48 <uli> subtopic: Previous minutes
17:03:50 <ivan> zakim, Danny is ivan
Ivan Herman: zakim, Danny is ivan ←
17:03:50 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ivan; got it ←
17:03:51 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
17:03:54 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look fine to me ←
17:04:18 <uli> IanH: minutes accepted
Ian Horrocks: minutes accepted ←
17:04:22 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
17:04:27 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:04:27 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:04:33 <uli> subtopic: Pending actions
17:04:43 <pfps> q+
17:04:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:04:59 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:05:35 <uli> pfps: action 182 and 183 have empty bodies
Peter Patel-Schneider: ACTION-182 and 183 have empty bodies ←
17:05:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:05:58 <uli> IanH: something should be done
Ian Horrocks: something should be done ←
17:05:59 <baojie> +q
17:06:11 <uli> pfps: or we say now that they are done
Peter Patel-Schneider: or we say now that they are done ←
17:06:37 <uli> IanH: we agree that action 182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty
Ian Horrocks: we agree that ACTION-182 and 183 are done, even though their bodies are empty ←
17:06:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:58 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
17:07:09 <uli> baojie: there is an incomplete version on the wiki
Jie Bao: there is an incomplete version on the wiki ←
17:07:35 <uli> IanH: asks for a pointer to this version
Ian Horrocks: asks for a pointer to this version ←
17:07:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:07:42 <pfps> q+
17:08:03 <uli> I will run down the corridor and remind bijan
I will run down the corridor and remind bijan ←
17:08:32 <baojie> An incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Image:Owl2-refcard_2008-08-19.pdf
Jie Bao: An incomplete pdf of Quick Reference Guide: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Image:Owl2-refcard_2008-08-19.pdf ←
17:08:47 <uli> back!
back! ←
17:08:57 <uli> i think so
i think so ←
17:09:13 <uli> IanH: action 150
17:09:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:09:28 <pfps> q-
17:09:34 <uli> baojie: we have come to a conclusion regarding owl:internationalizedString / rif:text, so it should be done - we changed the specification, I post a link:
Jie Bao: we have come to a conclusion regarding owl:internationalizedString / rif:text, so it should be done - we changed the specification, I post a link: ←
17:09:52 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0019.html
Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/0019.html ←
17:10:42 <uli> IanH: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string?
Ian Horrocks: can you come forward with a proposal re. internationalized string? ←
17:10:44 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:10:50 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:10:50 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:10:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:11:07 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:11:18 <uli> bmotik: I think there is a draft with the basics
Boris Motik: I think there is a draft with the basics ←
17:11:24 <baojie> preliminary spec: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
Jie Bao: preliminary spec: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←
17:11:56 <pfps> what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it?
Peter Patel-Schneider: what is the status of the wiki page, and what should happen to it? ←
17:12:01 <uli> IanH: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours?
Ian Horrocks: who take care of looking at this spec and see how we modify ours? ←
17:12:06 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:15 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:12:17 <uli> ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly
ACTION: bmotik to modify OWL spec accordingly ←
17:12:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - bmotik ←
17:12:25 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
17:12:28 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly
ACTION: bmotik2 to modify OWL spec accordingly ←
17:12:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-206 - Modify OWL spec accordingly [on Boris Motik - due 2008-09-10]. ←
17:12:36 <m_schnei> zakim, ??P21 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P21 is me ←
17:12:36 <Zakim> +m_schnei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +m_schnei; got it ←
17:12:40 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:12:40 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:12:41 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:12:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:45 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:12:45 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:12:53 <uli> pfps: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page
Peter Patel-Schneider: it would be odd if, in our spec, we would point to a wiki page ←
17:13:16 <uli> sandro: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft
Sandro Hawke: we could publsih the (content of) wiki as a working draft ←
17:13:32 <uli> IanH: as a RIF or as an OWL publication?
Ian Horrocks: as a RIF or as an OWL publication? ←
17:13:34 <ivan> can be a joined
Ivan Herman: can be a joined ←
17:13:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:41 <sandro> sandro: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC). Maybe we should make it a WD?
Sandro Hawke: I think it's OKAY as long we're only making the reference from a WD (pre-LC). Maybe we should make it a WD? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:13:42 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:13:43 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:14:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:19 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:14:28 <uli> bmotik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it
Boris Motik: we make the draft a WD and then reference it ←
17:14:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:15:04 <uli> ivan: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems.
Ivan Herman: I had a look at this and it looks as if its publication shouldn't cause any problems. ←
17:15:18 <uli> ivan: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication
Ivan Herman: we can even have a joint RIF/OWL publication ←
17:16:04 <uli> ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward
ACTION: sandro to take this publication plan forward ←
17:16:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-207 - Take this publication plan forward [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-10]. ←
17:16:21 <uli> (I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first)
(I chose sandro already - he said 'yes' first) ←
17:16:26 <uli> wellcome, ivan
wellcome, ivan ←
17:16:35 <Zakim> +??P22
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←
17:16:46 <bparsia> zakim, ??p22 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p22 is me ←
17:16:46 <Zakim> +bparsia; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bparsia; got it ←
17:16:50 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:16:50 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:16:57 <msmith> q+
Michael Smith: q+ ←
17:17:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:03 <uli> IanH: action 192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-192 re. UNA and OWL QL has been done as seen in an email ←
17:17:07 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
17:17:14 <uli> msmith: yes, we can close that one
Michael Smith: yes, we can close that one ←
17:17:29 <pfps> The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The consensus should result in a discussion / resolution agenda item for next week. ←
17:17:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:17:54 <uli> IanH: action 202 must wait for next week, as must 172
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-202 must wait for next week, as must 172 ←
17:18:09 <uli> IanH: I will chase Achille re. 172
Ian Horrocks: I will chase Achille re. 172 ←
17:18:13 <bparsia> I've had no action joy this week
Bijan Parsia: I've had no action joy this week ←
17:18:32 <uli> IanH: action 168 has been on for some time
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-168 has been on for some time ←
17:18:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:18:41 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:18:41 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:18:59 <uli> q+
q+ ←
17:19:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:20 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:19:20 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:19:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:19:25 <uli> zakim, unmute me
zakim, unmute me ←
17:19:25 <Zakim> uli should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should no longer be muted ←
17:19:29 <IanH> ack uli
Ian Horrocks: ack uli ←
17:20:07 <bparsia> works for me!
Bijan Parsia: works for me! ←
17:20:23 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:20:23 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:20:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:20:38 <uli> bparsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert
Bijan Parsia: have done some testing, am waiting for Robert ←
17:21:01 <uli> uli: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert
Uli Sattler: perhaps we should see whether there is some w3c official route and not bother Robert ←
17:21:23 <uli> bparsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly
Bijan Parsia: there are some easy problems, e.g., diagrams not alt-ed correctly ←
17:21:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:21:49 <uli> sandro: doesn't know of official w3c 'route'
Sandro Hawke: doesn't know of official w3c 'route' ←
17:22:15 <uli> bparsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit
Bijan Parsia: we could do a proper accessibility audit ←
17:22:32 <uli> IanH: so action 168 remains on you?
Ian Horrocks: so ACTION-168 remains on you? ←
17:22:46 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:22:46 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:22:52 <uli> bparsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list?
Bijan Parsia: couldn't we move it to a general "to-do" list? ←
17:22:56 <uli> IanH: ok, will do
Ian Horrocks: ok, will do ←
17:22:58 <bparsia> agreed
Bijan Parsia: agreed ←
17:23:01 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:14 <bparsia> works for me
Bijan Parsia: works for me ←
17:23:15 <uli> IanH: action 170 is mooted by events
Ian Horrocks: ACTION-170 is mooted by events ←
17:23:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:34 <uli> IanH: action 174?
17:23:37 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
17:23:37 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
17:23:52 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
17:23:52 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
17:23:53 <uli> bparsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly
Bijan Parsia: actually yes, bit also might be mooted shortly ←
17:23:58 <bparsia> yep
Bijan Parsia: yep ←
17:24:08 <uli> IanH: ok, so we move it by 1 week
Ian Horrocks: ok, so we move it by 1 week ←
17:24:17 <uli> subtopic: Reviewing
17:24:26 <uli> IanH: I saw already some reviews
Ian Horrocks: I saw already some reviews ←
17:24:32 <m_schnei> yes, thanks for the reviews so far!
Michael Schneider: yes, thanks for the reviews so far! ←
17:24:37 <uli> IanH: anybody else?
Ian Horrocks: anybody else? ←
17:24:40 <pfps> perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in?
Peter Patel-Schneider: perhaps the review page could be updated as reviews come in? ←
17:24:47 <uli> IanH: reviews are due on september 8, in 5 days
Ian Horrocks: reviews are due on september 8, in 5 days ←
17:24:52 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:24:52 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:24:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:00 <bmotik> I just muted me
Boris Motik: I just muted me ←
17:25:04 <uli> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
17:25:04 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:25:08 <bmotik> myself
Boris Motik: myself ←
17:25:45 <uli> IanH: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8
Ian Horrocks: a slight problem with the profiles document, other docs should be able to be reviewed by september 8 ←
17:25:58 <pfps> q+
17:26:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:26:16 <uli> IanH: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call
Ian Horrocks: the SKOS people have their SKOS reference out for last call ←
17:26:34 <uli> pfps: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document
Peter Patel-Schneider: I have already produced a review for the SKOS semantics document ←
17:26:48 <uli> IanH: and this is different from the reference?
Ian Horrocks: and this is different from the reference? ←
17:26:49 <m_schnei> only the SKOS ref is in LC
Michael Schneider: only the SKOS ref is in LC ←
17:26:58 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference ←
17:27:02 <ivan> SKOS Reference
Ivan Herman: SKOS Reference ←
17:27:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:27:15 <uli> pfps: forget - I meant powder!
Peter Patel-Schneider: forget - I meant powder! ←
17:27:19 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:27:38 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:27:42 <uli> IanH: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference?
Ian Horrocks: so, volunteers to review LC draft for SKOS reference? ←
17:27:42 <pfps> -1
17:27:43 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:27:43 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:28:15 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:28:15 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:28:18 <uli> m_schnei: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way
Michael Schneider: I started to do a personal look-through, but only with OWL full glasses on, and would prefer to keep it that way ←
17:28:23 <JeffP> I could try
17:28:23 <ivan> +q
Ivan Herman: +q ←
17:28:25 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:28:26 <uli> IanH: anybody else?
Ian Horrocks: anybody else? ←
17:28:40 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:28:43 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:28:51 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:28:56 <uli> ivan: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours?
Ivan Herman: the major issue is related to the annotation discussion -- where are we with ours? ←
17:29:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:14 <m_schnei> but does skos refer to owl 2 at all?
Michael Schneider: but does skos refer to owl 2 at all? ←
17:29:43 <uli> Ivan: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations
Ivan Herman: all the rest isn't really complicated, but we should check on issues around annotations ←
17:30:07 <uli> IanH: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects
Ian Horrocks: ok, I will send emails around to likely suspects ←
17:30:15 <uli> IanH: F2F4
Ian Horrocks: F2F4 ←
17:30:18 <m_schnei> true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties
Michael Schneider: true, skos:related and skos:broaderTransitive are intended to be disjoint properties ←
17:30:30 <uli> subtopic: F2F4
17:30:49 <uli> IanH: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate
Ian Horrocks: you need to book early if you want to profit from special rate ←
17:31:17 <m_schnei> i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :)
Michael Schneider: i found a hotel for about 70EUR in the neighbourhood :) ←
17:31:29 <uli> sandro: 'special rate' is insane, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood
Sandro Hawke: 'special rate' is shockling high, esp in US$, I suggest to look around in the neighbourhood ←
17:31:47 <uli> IanH: or you can look around on the internet?
Ian Horrocks: or you can look around on the internet? ←
17:32:11 <uli> sandro: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates
Sandro Hawke: but then you don't contribute to the meeting room rates ←
17:32:38 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4_People
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F4_People ←
17:32:40 <uli> IanH: and don't forget to register to TPAC
Ian Horrocks: and don't forget to register to TPAC ←
17:32:49 <sandro> s/insane/shockling high, esp in US$/
17:33:06 <uli> sandro, we can remove all the above
sandro, we can remove all the above ←
17:33:32 <uli> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/ ←
17:33:33 <bparsia> Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page?
Bijan Parsia: Perhaps a link to tpac from the f2f4 page? ←
17:33:35 <sandro> REGISTER HERE: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/
Sandro Hawke: REGISTER HERE: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/ ←
17:33:39 <ivan> there is a link on the wiki page, too
Ivan Herman: there is a link on the wiki page, too ←
17:34:07 <uli> topic: Issues
17:34:07 <uli> subtopic: Issues 131 and 116
17:34:54 <uli> IanH: Issue 131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130.
Ian Horrocks: ISSUE-131, 141 and 130 seem to be related, a bit more to discuss on 130. ←
17:34:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:10 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:35:14 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:35:14 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
17:35:16 <uli> IanH: but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141
Ian Horrocks: but with the drafts we have in the wiki, perhaps we can resolve 131 and 141 ←
17:35:54 <uli> m_schnei: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116
Michael Schneider: I am perfectly happy with proposal for 116 ←
17:36:11 <m_schnei> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:36:11 <Zakim> m_schnei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should now be muted ←
17:36:24 <uli> IanH: any other opinions?
Ian Horrocks: any other opinions? ←
17:36:38 <Zhe> q+
17:36:42 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:36:44 <m_schnei> q-
Michael Schneider: q- ←
17:36:45 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me
17:36:45 <Zakim> Zhe should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should no longer be muted ←
17:36:52 <uli> IanH: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok
Ian Horrocks: I have discussed this earlier with Alan, and he seems ok ←
17:37:02 <uli> i can't hear you, Zhe
i can't hear you, Zhe ←
17:37:29 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:37:36 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
17:37:37 <Zhe> I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea
Zhe Wu: I thought we are waiting for RPI's response on unification idea ←
17:37:48 <uli> baojie: I didn't follow this discussion closely
Jie Bao: I didn't follow this discussion closely ←
17:38:37 <bparsia> +1 to move forward and let people react
Bijan Parsia: +1 to move forward and let people react ←
17:38:38 <uli> IanH: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway.
Ian Horrocks: I have discussed these with Jim, and seems to be fine and he will review the document anyway. ←
17:38:39 <JeffP> reasonable
17:38:53 <uli> sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking
sorry, Zhe, baojie, I couldn't tell who was talking ←
17:39:04 <Zhe> np
17:39:59 <sandro> from my notes "Alan: Close issue-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles. There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...."
Sandro Hawke: from my notes "Alan: Close ISSUE-131 by saying we're happy with the current structure of Profiles. There's one semantics for OWL RL, which the OWL Full semantics...." ←
17:40:22 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:40:35 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:40:40 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:40:41 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:40:46 <sandro> Sandro: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here.
Sandro Hawke: we're still haggling about conformance, which is no longer connected here. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:40:56 <uli> thanks, sandro
thanks, sandro ←
17:41:13 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI) ←
17:41:33 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
17:41:35 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:41:49 <uli> we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email"
we could be more precise saying "under 1 in Ian's email" ←
17:41:57 <sandro> +1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (with us being clear that CONFORMANCE is not addressed here) ←
17:42:01 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:42:04 <Zhe> +1
17:42:06 <uli> +1
+1 ←
17:42:16 <baojie> +1
17:42:16 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:42:22 <MartinD> +1
Martin Dzbor: +1 ←
17:42:28 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-131 and 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:42:28 <JeffP> +1
17:43:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:43:24 <uli> IanH: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116?
Ian Horrocks: can we have a similar resolution wrt 116? ←
17:43:53 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-116 as per Ian's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0288.html ←
17:44:01 <pfps> +1
17:44:02 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:44:09 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:44:11 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
17:44:29 <JeffP> :-)
17:44:35 <ivan> this just makes the point that we really really resolved it
Ivan Herman: this just makes the point that we really really resolved it ←
17:44:53 <uli> IanH: rules generating literals in subject position
Ian Horrocks: rules generating literals in subject position ←
17:45:06 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
17:45:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:45:12 <uli> IanH: issue 141
17:45:13 <Zhe> q+
17:45:24 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
17:45:28 <uli> IanH: this is already made clear in the document
Ian Horrocks: this is already made clear in the document ←
17:45:57 <ivan> not predicate but subject position
Ivan Herman: not predicate but subject position ←
17:46:08 <uli> Zhe: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do?
Zhe Wu: just to make sure: if this "literal in subject position" happens, what do we do? ←
17:46:42 <uli> IanH: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples
Ian Horrocks: the rule sets works on a generalization of triples ←
17:46:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:09 <uli> Zhe: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"?
Zhe Wu: what is the best approach to avoid generation of "illegal rfd triples"? ←
17:47:32 <JeffP> They are triples but not RDF triples
Jeff Pan: They are triples but not RDF triples ←
17:47:39 <uli> IanH: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok and you won't see these since you can't ask for them
Ian Horrocks: we already say in the spec that these are "generalized" triples, so this is ok and you won't see these since you can't ask for them ←
17:48:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:48:05 <uli> Zhe: I see - so I guess it's fine
Zhe Wu: I see - so I guess it's fine ←
17:48:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:48:13 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#End_Notes
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#End_Notes ←
17:48:14 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
17:48:19 <uli> ivan: this is editorial - the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document
Ivan Herman: this is editorial - the above is a note regarding the same problem which could be added to the document ←
17:48:28 <pfps> As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples.
Peter Patel-Schneider: As far as the basic conformance is concerned, there is no way to tell if the system is generating these generalized triples. ←
17:49:08 <m_schnei> one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without)
Michael Schneider: one implication is that you get with generalized triples every entailment which you got before (without) ←
17:49:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:44 <uli> PROPOSED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html ←
17:49:46 <pfps> +1, surprise :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, surprise :-) ←
17:49:46 <JeffP> +1
17:49:48 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:49:48 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:49:49 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:49:50 <uli> +1
+1 ←
17:49:52 <IanH> +1
Ian Horrocks: +1 ←
17:49:54 <MartinD> +1
Martin Dzbor: +1 ←
17:49:54 <m_schnei> +1 (FZI)
Michael Schneider: +1 (FZI) ←
17:49:58 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:50:03 <Zhe> +1
17:50:06 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:50:34 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:50:38 <baojie> +1
17:51:03 <uli> RESOLVED: resolve issue 141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-141 as per Peter's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0203.html ←
17:51:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:33 <uli> subtopic: Issue 130
17:51:35 <uli> IanH: for issue 130, we have a proposal http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance
Ian Horrocks: for ISSUE-130, we have a proposal http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance ←
17:51:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:49 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
17:51:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:05 <uli> IanH: so, can we resolve it like this next week?
Ian Horrocks: so, can we resolve it like this next week? ←
17:52:06 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:52:06 <Zakim> bmotik was already muted, bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik was already muted, bmotik ←
17:52:52 <uli> sandro: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this
Sandro Hawke: I still see the issue that Michael raised, and I would like a simple solution to this ←
17:52:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:59 <uli> sandro, which problem is this?
sandro, which problem is this? ←
17:53:04 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:53:08 <sandro> ack sandro
Sandro Hawke: ack sandro ←
17:53:45 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
17:54:04 <uli> IanH: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers
Ian Horrocks: perhaps sandro has overlooked the precise meaning of this, i.e., that reasoners cannot flip flop between answers ←
17:54:28 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:54:28 <Zakim> m_schnei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei should no longer be muted ←
17:54:29 <uli> sandro: perhaps the problem isn't so bad
Sandro Hawke: perhaps the problem isn't so bad ←
17:54:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:54:38 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
17:54:47 <uli> m_schnei: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this
Michael Schneider: all I wanted with my remark was to explicate this ←
17:54:51 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
17:54:54 <uli> m_schnei, what?
m_schnei, what? ←
17:55:12 <sandro> m_schnei: I just wanted it documented
Michael Schneider: I just wanted it documented [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:55:32 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:37 <m_schnei> m_schnei: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this
Michael Schneider: I want to clarify that I just want to have this conformance behaviour made explicit, I do *not* deny this [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
17:55:59 <uli> IanH: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer
Ian Horrocks: we should say that, all conformant systems should always agree on their answer ←
17:56:17 <uli> sandro: what about negative entailments? Do we need another reasoner for them?
Sandro Hawke: what about negative entailments? Do we need another reasoner for them? ←
17:56:37 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:53 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:26 <m_schnei> you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA
Michael Schneider: you cannot always say from "false" that the converse is true, in particular not under OWA ←
17:57:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:39 <uli> sandro: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks
Sandro Hawke: oracle wasn't interested in negative/theorem 1 checks ←
17:57:50 <sandro> Sandro: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check?
Sandro Hawke: Are people going to implement the theorem-1 check? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:57:53 <uli> Zhe: flexibility for user is a good thing
Zhe Wu: flexibility for user is a good thing ←
17:58:30 <uli> Zhe: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful
Zhe Wu: it will be difficult to tell which rules are bottleneck, so theorem 1 check could be useful ←
17:58:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:57 <uli> Zhe: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it
Zhe Wu: I don't know yet what exactly we will implement, but we may implement it ←
17:59:28 <bijan> SHOULD!
Bijan Parsia: SHOULD! ←
17:59:28 <uli> IanH: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'?
Ian Horrocks: for the test, should we strengthen 'may' to 'should'? ←
17:59:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:59:37 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:59:58 <sandro> ack ivan
Sandro Hawke: ack ivan ←
18:00:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:00:27 <bijan> I'll call at MUST
Bijan Parsia: I'll call at MUST ←
18:00:33 <uli> ivan: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high
Ivan Herman: I would prefer 'may' since otherwise the implementor load is too high ←
18:01:04 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:01:04 <Zakim> sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bijan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
18:01:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:01:16 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:01:17 <uli> sandro: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false
Sandro Hawke: we shouldn't allow reasoners to say 'false' unless it's really false ←
18:01:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:36 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:01:36 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:01:39 <m_schnei> zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise
Michael Schneider: zhe, even if you only implement a /partial/ /forward/ chainer, then you have an implicit entailment checker: just look in the resulting inference graph and only say "yes", if some entailment is in, and say "no" otherwise ←
18:01:39 <uli> sandro: we should call that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown'
Sandro Hawke: we should call that part 'must' and otherwise, use 'unknown' ←
18:01:42 <bparsia> +1 to sandro's must proposal
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro's must proposal ←
18:02:03 <sandro> sandro: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking.
Sandro Hawke: How about you MUST do theorem-1 checking before returning FALSE, BUT you can return UNKNOWN if you don't want to do that checking. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:02:27 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:02:27 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:02:38 <uli> bparsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise
Bijan Parsia: I like sandro's suggestion - having this check available will enhance interoperability, and the 'unknown' option is a good compromise ←
18:02:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:03 <ivan> ack bparsia
Ivan Herman: ack bparsia ←
18:03:12 <IanH> ack ivan
Ian Horrocks: ack ivan ←
18:03:16 <uli> IanH: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test
Ian Horrocks: but if we change to "must", then we must explain what implementors could do who wouldn't want to implement the test ←
18:03:42 <sandro> sandro: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level.
Sandro Hawke: absolutely -- we need text here which makes sense to people without thinking it all through at this level. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:03:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:57 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:03 <uli> ivan: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this?
Ivan Herman: from Zhe's presentation in Manchester, how would the 'must' work with this? ←
18:04:04 <Zhe> q+
18:04:35 <uli> IanH: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries. So a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query'
Ian Horrocks: tricky since we talk about entailments, but we are also interested in queries. So a false is then a 'no, it's really not in the query' ←
18:04:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:44 <IanH> ack zhe...
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe... ←
18:04:55 <sandro> Ian: in real life, people do query answering. So the "false" is kind of like not answering the query.
Ian Horrocks: in real life, people do query answering. So the "false" is kind of like not answering the query. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:05:22 <uli> Zhe: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden
Zhe Wu: I would prefer 'may' since 'should' or 'must' would be a burden ←
18:05:41 <uli> IanH: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown' and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false!
Ian Horrocks: but sandro's proposal also allow you to return 'unknown' and this gives us more honesty: 'false' really means false! ←
18:06:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:15 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:06:28 <bparsia> (to answer this)
Bijan Parsia: (to answer this) ←
18:06:32 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:06:32 <Zakim> bparsia was not muted, bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia was not muted, bparsia ←
18:06:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:06:36 <uli> Zhe: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'?
Zhe Wu: but in a forward chaining system, where could be return such an 'unknown'? ←
18:06:39 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
18:06:48 <sandro> ack bparsia
Sandro Hawke: ack bparsia ←
18:07:14 <uli> bparsia: on load time, or in the query
Bijan Parsia: on load time, or in the query ←
18:07:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:39 <uli> sandro: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result - does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer?
Sandro Hawke: so, user asks query 'q', and didn't get a certain result - does this mean that rules couldn't find this result or that it shouldn't be in answer? ←
18:08:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:14 <m_schnei> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:08:26 <uli> Zhe: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there?
Zhe Wu: but how would 'unknown' be helpful there? ←
18:08:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:07 <sandro> sandro: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not. that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition.
Sandro Hawke: on query results, systems should include a flag saying whether complete reasoning was done or not. that's the equivalent of this false/unknown thing in the conformance definition. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:09:09 <uli> bparsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are
Bijan Parsia: with SPARQL owl, i looked at racerPro and Sher, and there it is important as well to have a mechanism to indicate to the user how complete you are ←
18:09:24 <m_schnei> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:09:24 <Zakim> m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei ←
18:09:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:29 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:09:29 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:09:34 <IanH> ack m_schnei
Ian Horrocks: ack m_schnei ←
18:09:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:05 <uli> m_schnei, I can't understand you
m_schnei, I can't understand you ←
18:10:52 <sandro> m_schnei: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE
Michael Schneider: you have to at least implement the full ruleset, and have it not FOL entailed, before you can return FALSE [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:10:55 <uli> heavy breathing
heavy breathing ←
18:11:14 <sandro> (I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.)
Sandro Hawke: (I have a response to m_schnei, but .... maybe I'll save it.) ←
18:11:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:11:51 <uli> IanH: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial
Ian Horrocks: using 'unknown' would be a mechanism to indicate to the user that the results to a query may be partial ←
18:12:06 <uli> Zhe: i don't see the additional value
Zhe Wu: i don't see the additional value ←
18:12:26 <bparsia> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
18:12:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:12:33 <uli> IanH: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant
Ian Horrocks: it prevents implementors from having unsound systems and calling them conformant ←
18:12:34 <m_schnei> m_schnei: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics
Michael Schneider: you are only allowed to say "False", if the entailment does not exist w.r.t. the /complete/ ruleset. so the NULL reasoner is not allowed. An implementer MAY go beyond the whole ruleset, up to the complete full semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
18:13:03 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:13:03 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:13:17 <uli> sandro: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners
Sandro Hawke: I would like to have a flag that distinguishes complete from incomplete reasoners ←
18:13:40 <uli> sandro: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant?
Sandro Hawke: but can any OWL RL rule implementation ever be conformant? ←
18:13:53 <m_schnei> the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance
Michael Schneider: the /ruleset/ is the lower bound of RL conformance ←
18:13:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:08 <uli> IanH: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned
Ian Horrocks: sure - they are *sound*, we only talk about non-entailments, cases where things are *not* returned ←
18:14:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:19 <IanH> ack bparsia
Ian Horrocks: ack bparsia ←
18:14:25 <uli> sandro: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases
Sandro Hawke: and then you could use theorem 1 to find complete cases ←
18:14:31 <m_schnei> btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment
Michael Schneider: btw, if the ruleset entails something, then you can savely say "True", because then OWL Full would produce the same entailment ←
18:14:49 <sandro> ian: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning.
Ian Horrocks: Theorem 1 gives you the completeness guarantee -- it says that if the ontology looks like this, complete-rule-reasoning is complete-ontology-reasoning. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:15:08 <uli> bparsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this
Bijan Parsia: users from bioontology really value complete reasoning, and so we should be able to signal this ←
18:15:35 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:15:37 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:15:37 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:15:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:41 <uli> IanH: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week
Ian Horrocks: let's take the discussion on-line, implement the suggested modifications and discuss next week ←
18:15:57 <sandro> q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance ←
18:16:07 <sandro> q- ivan
Sandro Hawke: q- ivan ←
18:16:12 <uli> ivan: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down
Ivan Herman: i would still like to see the consequences for an implementation being written down ←
18:16:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:32 <IanH> ack sandro
Ian Horrocks: ack sandro ←
18:16:32 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask if query answering should be covered in Conformance ←
18:16:47 <Zhe> q+
18:17:01 <uli> sandro: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document?
Sandro Hawke: let's write it down - but where do we write about query answering? In the conformance document? ←
18:17:04 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
18:17:21 <bparsia> I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback"
Bijan Parsia: I'd be open to flagging it as "depeding on implementor feedback" ←
18:17:33 <bparsia> I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen
Bijan Parsia: I'd rather have the stronger and weaken, then do the weaker and then strengthen ←
18:18:02 <uli> IanH: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance: we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance
Ian Horrocks: the tricky bit is the dependency between profiles and conformance: we can't review profiles before we fixed conformance ←
18:18:04 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:18:04 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:18:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:53 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:18:53 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:19:03 <uli> bparsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together
Bijan Parsia: why don't we make conformance really strict (so that poking holes in it is easier) and then review them together ←
18:19:07 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:19:16 <uli> sandro: who updates the draft?
Sandro Hawke: who updates the draft? ←
18:19:38 <uli> ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown'
ACTION: IanH to update the conformance document with 'unkown' ←
18:19:38 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - IanH ←
18:20:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:20:29 <bparsia> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
18:20:29 <Zakim> bparsia should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should no longer be muted ←
18:20:31 <m_schnei> I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-)
Michael Schneider: I already saw the distinct "ox" namespace in the POWDER semantics ;-) ←
18:21:07 <uli> subtopic: Issue 109
18:21:22 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:36 <uli> bparsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces
Bijan Parsia: it would be good to not have to change namespaces ←
18:22:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:22:22 <uli> sandro: can we have a pointer to this
Sandro Hawke: can we have a pointer to this ←
18:22:26 <bparsia> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
18:22:26 <Zakim> bparsia should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bparsia should now be muted ←
18:22:59 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:23:01 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:23:01 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:23:03 <uli> subtopic: issue 138
18:23:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:23:28 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
18:23:29 <msmith> q+
Michael Smith: q+ ←
18:23:29 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:23:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:30 <uli> bmotik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one
Boris Motik: let's use owl:datetime since the datatype is different from the xsd one ←
18:23:31 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:23:32 <bparsia> +1 to boris
Bijan Parsia: +1 to boris ←
18:23:58 <uli> ivan: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that?
Ivan Herman: [procedural] didn't we want to ask xsd people about that? ←
18:24:23 <uli> IanH: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter?
Ian Horrocks: didn't sandro want to edit this message from peter? ←
18:24:36 <pfps> Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Sandro sent a message, but didn't ask for any action. ←
18:24:53 <pfps> I'm willing to edit the document, I guess.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm willing to edit the document, I guess. ←
18:25:07 <pfps> ??
18:25:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:19 <uli> IanH: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it? To make it more punchy?
Ian Horrocks: I observe confusion -- pfps, can you edit the mail and send it? To make it more punchy? ←
18:25:27 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
18:25:39 <uli> sandro: it should say more clearly what they should do.
Sandro Hawke: it should say more clearly what they should do. ←
18:25:42 <msmith> q?
Michael Smith: q? ←
18:25:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:09 <uli> IanH: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace
Ian Horrocks: would their answer have any influence of what we do about datetime namespace ←
18:26:13 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:26:49 <uli> msmith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them?
Michael Smith: bmotik convinced me that xsd and owl datetime are really different, so perhaps we don't need to waste time by asking them? ←
18:26:52 <bparsia> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
18:26:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:01 <bmotik> It already is owl:dateTime.
Boris Motik: It already is owl:dateTime. ←
18:27:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:05 <pfps> +epsilon
Peter Patel-Schneider: +epsilon ←
18:27:07 <uli> IanH: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime?
Ian Horrocks: so msmith suggest to just go ahead with owl:datetime? ←
18:27:17 <bmotik> I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it.
Boris Motik: I used owl:dateTime in anticipation of this discussion. There is an editorial comment about it. ←
18:27:24 <pfps> OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me ←
18:27:30 <uli> ivan: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime
Ivan Herman: we should keep the issue open, but use owl:datetime ←
18:27:40 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:27:43 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
18:27:43 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
18:27:44 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:27:49 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:27:49 <sandro> ack bmotik
Sandro Hawke: ack bmotik ←
18:28:04 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
18:28:04 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
18:28:21 <pfps> +1
18:28:23 <uli> bmotik: we already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now
Boris Motik: we already use owl:datetime, so we can't do anything else on this now ←
18:28:33 <uli> IanH; AOB?
IanH; AOB? ←
18:28:33 <Zhe> q+
18:28:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:28:47 <IanH> ack Zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe ←
18:28:54 <uli> Zhe: i want to open an issue about base triples?
Zhe Wu: i want to open an issue about base triples? ←
18:29:16 <uli> IanH: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week
Ian Horrocks: you raised it, and it is now open, and we can discuss this next week ←
18:29:24 <uli> IanH: AOB?
Ian Horrocks: AOB? ←
18:29:28 <JeffP> thanks, bye
18:29:32 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:29:33 <Zhe> bye
18:29:33 <uli> meeting is closed, thanks
meeting is closed, thanks ←
18:29:33 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:29:35 <IanH> bye
Ian Horrocks: bye ←
18:29:36 <Zakim> -JeffP
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeffP ←
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:29:37 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:29:38 <Zakim> -bparsia
Zakim IRC Bot: -bparsia ←
18:29:39 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:29:40 <Zakim> -IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: -IanH ←
18:29:41 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:29:41 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:29:41 <sandro> thanks, Ian. :-)
Sandro Hawke: thanks, Ian. :-) ←
18:29:43 <Zakim> -ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -ivan ←
18:29:49 <Zakim> -m_schnei
Zakim IRC Bot: -m_schnei ←
18:29:51 <Zakim> -MartinD
Zakim IRC Bot: -MartinD ←
Formatted by CommonScribe