edit

OWL Working Group

Minutes of 24 October 2008

Present
Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Peter Patel-Schneider, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Sandro Hawke, Markus Krötzsch, Michael Schneider, Achille Fokoue, Bijan Parsia, Evan Wallace, Christine Golbreich, Rinke Hoekstra, Ivan Herman, Alan Ruttenberg
Remote
Zhe Wu, Jie Bao, Michael Smith
Scribe
Evan Wallace, Markus Krötzsch, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Achille Fokoue, Boris Motik, Ivan Herman
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. link
  2. Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties link
  3. Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges link
  4. Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics link
  5. Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms. link
  6. Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping. link
  7. We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side. link
  8. Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1. link
  9. Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1) link
  10. Profile document goes to Last Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1) link
  11. If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1). 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

<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, michael_schneider, Achille, bijan, wallace, Christine, Rinke, Ivan, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: Zhe, baojie, msmith
06:50:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc

06:50:18 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl wg

Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl wg

06:50:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace

Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace

06:50:33 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl

Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl

06:50:33 <Zakim> ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago

06:51:14 <wallace> ScribeNick: wallace

(Scribe set to Evan Wallace)

07:06:02 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B

(No events recorded for 14 minutes)

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B

07:06:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

07:06:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

07:06:03 <Zakim> +Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B

07:06:39 <ivan> zakim, drop Riveiera_B

Ivan Herman: zakim, drop Riveiera_B

07:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'

07:06:52 <ivan> zakim, who is there?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there?

07:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan.

07:07:14 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B

07:07:14 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

07:07:16 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a

07:07:31 <Zakim> -Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B

07:07:40 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a

Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a

07:07:41 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended

07:07:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a

07:07:54 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B

07:07:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

07:07:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started

07:07:56 <Zakim> +Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B

07:08:17 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone?

07:08:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B

07:08:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

07:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B

07:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot

07:12:24 <wallace> topic: XSD data types

1. XSD data types

07:12:24 <wallace> subtopic: Issue 138 Name of dateTime datatype

1.1. ISSUE-138 Name of dateTime datatype

07:13:04 <wallace> pfps: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg

Peter Patel-Schneider: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg

07:13:17 <wallace> ... and there is no problem

... and there is no problem

07:13:34 <wallace> pfps: we will be using as identity the single timeline

Peter Patel-Schneider: we will be using as identity the single timeline

07:13:51 <wallace> ... not the seven value rep.

... not the seven value rep.

07:14:03 <wallace> ... our identity is their equality

... our identity is their equality

07:14:17 <wallace> ... The only thing we might consider is a note to

... The only thing we might consider is a note to

07:14:38 <wallace> ... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there

... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there

07:15:23 <wallace> boris: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence

Boris Motik: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence

07:15:50 <wallace> pfps: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone

Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone

07:16:04 <wallace> ... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue

... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue

07:16:34 <wallace> ... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week

... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week

07:16:52 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:17:08 <wallace> pfps: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium

Peter Patel-Schneider: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium

07:17:21 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:17:30 <wallace> pfps: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon

Peter Patel-Schneider: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon

07:17:40 <wallace> ivan: my only fear about this is

Ivan Herman: my only fear about this is

07:17:59 <wallace> ... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are

... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are

07:18:29 <wallace> ... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.

... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.

07:18:20 <sandro> Boris: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int.

Boris Motik: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:19:18 <sandro> Sandro: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much.

Sandro Hawke: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:19:27 <wallace> pfps: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name

Peter Patel-Schneider: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name

07:20:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.

07:20:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

07:20:59 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

07:21:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

07:21:08 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

07:21:19 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

07:21:27 <Zakim> +Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe

07:21:30 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

07:21:38 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

07:21:39 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

07:21:45 <wallace> ewallace: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

07:21:51 <Christine> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

07:22:12 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

07:22:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.

07:23:45 <wallace> ... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain

... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain

07:24:14 <wallace> ivan: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?

Ivan Herman: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?

07:24:46 <wallace> sandro: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time

Sandro Hawke: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time

07:25:13 <wallace> pfps: I don't think there will be a problem with this.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there will be a problem with this.

07:26:37 <sandro> sandro: (so basically, any awkwardness of  rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.)

Sandro Hawke: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

07:27:53 <sandro> Topic: New Issues Affecting Core Documents

2. New Issues Affecting Core Documents

07:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

2.1. ISSUE-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

07:28:57 <wallace> boris: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange

Boris Motik: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange

07:30:51 <pfps> boris: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means

Boris Motik: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:31:10 <wallace> boris: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer

Boris Motik: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer

07:31:30 <pfps> boris: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment

Boris Motik: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:31:33 <wallace> ... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much

... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much

07:31:46 <wallace> ... rdf already has it

... rdf already has it

07:32:09 <wallace> ivan: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL

Ivan Herman: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL

07:32:16 <pfps> boris: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection

Boris Motik: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:32:52 <pfps> boris: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes)

Boris Motik: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:32:57 <wallace> boris: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there

Boris Motik: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there

07:33:12 <wallace> ... this is something we would only add to the general language

... this is something we would only add to the general language

07:33:16 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call?

07:33:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

07:33:18 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:33:35 <schneid> m_schnei: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF

Michael Schneider: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]

07:33:57 <wallace> bijan: its a late addition.  I generally like expressivity.  There aren't any users demanding this yet.

Bijan Parsia: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet.

07:34:16 <wallace> ... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners

... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners

07:34:39 <wallace> ... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition

... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition

07:34:48 <schneid> m_schnei: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full

Michael Schneider: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]

07:34:59 <wallace> ... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here

... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here

07:35:05 <schneid> m_schnei: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics

Michael Schneider: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]

07:35:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public

07:35:16 <wallace> boris: you can handle this at the level of tableaux

Boris Motik: you can handle this at the level of tableaux

07:35:39 <wallace> christine: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately

Christine Golbreich: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately

07:36:11 <wallace> schneid: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature

Michael Schneider: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature

07:36:32 <wallace> achille: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself?

Achille Fokoue: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself?

07:36:47 <wallace> bijan: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it.

Bijan Parsia: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it.

07:37:05 <wallace> ... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases

... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases

07:37:29 <wallace> ianh: everybodies happy with it.  It seems a no brainer to add it.

Ian Horrocks: everybodies happy with it. It seems a no brainer to add it.

07:37:47 <wallace> bijan: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD

Bijan Parsia: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD

07:38:04 <wallace> ... I will put a comment on the issue page.

... I will put a comment on the issue page.

07:38:26 <wallace> ivan: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when

Ivan Herman: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when

07:39:13 <wallace> ... we say "feature stop".  When will we say "that's it guys"  ?

... we say "feature stop". When will we say "that's it guys" ?

07:39:37 <wallace> ivan: it's not my intention to block this one.

Ivan Herman: it's not my intention to block this one.

07:40:46 <wallace> subtopic: Issue 148 owl:topDataProperty may invalidate Theorem

2.2. ISSUE-148 owl:topDataProperty may invalidate Theorem

07:41:21 <wallace> boris: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that

Boris Motik: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that

07:41:33 <wallace> ... could arrive address issue 147

... could arrive address ISSUE-147

07:42:12 <wallace> boris: you could fix the set of datatypes

Boris Motik: you could fix the set of datatypes

07:42:48 <wallace> boris: assume we don't introduce union now

Boris Motik: assume we don't introduce union now

07:43:13 <wallace> ... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own

... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own

07:44:47 <wallace> schneid: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147

Michael Schneider: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147

07:45:10 <bernardo> q+

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: q+

07:45:10 <wallace> ivan: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property

Ivan Herman: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property

07:45:28 <wallace> boris: no, because it is not on a concrete domain

Boris Motik: no, because it is not on a concrete domain

07:45:32 <pfps> boris: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes

Boris Motik: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:45:34 <schneid> m_schnei: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway

Michael Schneider: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]

07:45:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:45:46 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:45:53 <IanH> ack bernardo

Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo

07:45:59 <wallace> bernardo: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory

07:46:06 <pfps> boris:  if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent

Boris Motik: if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:46:29 <bernardo> q-

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: q-

07:46:37 <wallace> ... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally

... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally

07:47:14 <wallace> bijan: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling

Bijan Parsia: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling

07:47:23 <pfps> boris: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty

Boris Motik: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:47:54 <wallace> ianh: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed

Ian Horrocks: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed

07:48:08 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:48:10 <pfps> boris: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms

Boris Motik: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:48:39 <pfps> markus: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent

Markus Krötzsch: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:49:19 <pfps> boris:  you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values

Boris Motik: you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

07:49:44 <wallace> bijan: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction

Bijan Parsia: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction

07:49:59 <wallace> ianh: we are pretty much on the same page

Ian Horrocks: we are pretty much on the same page

07:51:13 <wallace> boris: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full

Boris Motik: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full

07:51:55 <wallace> schneid: this problem is already in OWL Full

Michael Schneider: this problem is already in OWL Full

07:53:18 <wallace> ianh: we have two proposals that are linked

Ian Horrocks: we have two proposals that are linked

07:54:45 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties

07:54:49 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

07:54:53 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

07:54:55 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

07:54:56 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

07:54:57 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

07:54:58 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

07:55:00 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

07:55:01 <bijan> +1 (Manchester or Oxford)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester or Oxford)

07:55:01 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

07:55:03 <wallace> ewallace: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

07:55:04 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq)

07:55:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

07:55:06 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

07:55:29 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties

07:55:55 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

07:55:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

07:56:00 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

07:56:03 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

07:56:05 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

07:56:05 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq)

07:56:08 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

07:56:08 <wallace> ewallace: +1

Evan Wallace: +1

07:56:10 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

07:56:10 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

07:56:11 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

07:56:15 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

07:56:17 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

07:56:42 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

07:56:46 <sandro> again :-)

Sandro Hawke: again :-)

07:56:56 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges

07:57:36 <Zhe> I just click +1

Zhe Wu: I just click +1

07:58:25 <wallace> subtopic: Issue 144 Missing Base Triple in Serialization of Axioms with Annotations.

2.3. ISSUE-144 Missing Base Triple in Serialization of Axioms with Annotations.

07:58:45 <pfps> zakim, who is here?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here?

07:58:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

07:58:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot

07:58:54 <wallace> zhe: my position has not changed yet

Zhe Wu: my position has not changed yet

07:59:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

07:59:10 <wallace> ... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization

... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization

07:59:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

07:59:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

07:59:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot

07:59:43 <wallace> schneid: my position has also not changed

Michael Schneider: my position has also not changed

07:59:55 <wallace> ... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping

... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping

08:00:36 <wallace> ... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation)

... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation)

08:00:37 <Zhe> I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael

Zhe Wu: I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael

08:00:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

08:00:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46

08:00:52 <wallace> ... if we have rdf graph with assertions

... if we have rdf graph with assertions

08:01:48 <wallace> ... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples

... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples

08:02:34 <wallace> schneid: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this

Michael Schneider: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this

08:02:55 <wallace> boris: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent

Boris Motik: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent

08:03:14 <wallace> ... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything

... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything

08:03:42 <wallace> ... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences

... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences

08:04:19 <wallace> schneid: everyone has to upgrade

Michael Schneider: everyone has to upgrade

08:05:30 <wallace> boris: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems

Boris Motik: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems

08:06:12 <wallace> boris: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics

Boris Motik: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics

08:07:03 <wallace> ivan: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple

Ivan Herman: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple

08:07:25 <wallace> boris: the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics

Boris Motik: the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics

08:08:10 <sandro> Bijan: can we list all the downsides?

Bijan Parsia: can we list all the downsides? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:08:46 <sandro> Boris: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated.

Boris Motik: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:08:47 <wallace> boris: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated

Boris Motik: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated

08:08:57 <sandro> Bijan: And we bloat the size of the ontology.

Bijan Parsia: And we bloat the size of the ontology. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:10:08 <sandro> schneid: But this is unavoidable anyway.  Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors.    This has to mapped and reverse mapped.   So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated.

Michael Schneider: But this is unavoidable anyway. Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors. This has to mapped and reverse mapped. So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:10:21 <sandro> Boris: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node.

Boris Motik: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:10:35 <sandro> Ian: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree.

Ian Horrocks: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

08:10:53 <wallace> ianh: are we ready to close the issue

Ian Horrocks: are we ready to close the issue

08:12:13 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics

08:12:13 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

08:12:16 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

08:12:17 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :))

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :))

08:12:18 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

08:12:19 <pfps> 0

Peter Patel-Schneider: 0

08:12:20 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

08:12:24 <schneid> wallace: +1

Evan Wallace: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ]

08:12:26 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

08:12:27 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

08:12:28 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

08:12:30 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

08:12:45 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

08:12:54 <schneid> +1 (for me either :))

Michael Schneider: +1 (for me either :))

08:12:56 <Christine> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

08:13:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics

08:14:57 <MarkusK_> scribenick: MarkusK_

(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)

08:15:28 <pfps> subtopic: Issue 149 Some problems with OWL 2 RL

2.4. ISSUE-149 Some problems with OWL 2 RL

08:15:50 <MarkusK_> ivan: there are two issues here

Ivan Herman: there are two issues here

08:16:00 <MarkusK_> ... boris filed them as one

... boris filed them as one

08:16:29 <MarkusK_> ... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property

... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property

08:16:46 <MarkusK_> ... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set

... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set

08:17:20 <MarkusK_> ... in addition, some additional rules are needed to axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL

... in addition, some additional rules are needed to axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL

08:17:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:17:49 <MarkusK_> ivan: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris

Ivan Herman: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris

08:18:09 <MarkusK_> ... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store

... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store

08:18:10 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

08:18:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe

08:18:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

08:18:23 <MarkusK_> ... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint

... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint

08:18:41 <MarkusK_> ... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not?

... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not?

08:18:56 <MarkusK_> ... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large

... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large

08:19:03 <MarkusK_> ian: any suggestions for resolving this?

Ian Horrocks: any suggestions for resolving this?

08:19:03 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

08:19:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:19:15 <MarkusK_> ivan: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors

Ivan Herman: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors

08:19:19 <IanH> ack zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack zhe

08:19:41 <MarkusK_> zhe: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects

Zhe Wu: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects

08:20:13 <MarkusK_> ... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold

... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold

08:20:17 <sandro> present-= Wallace

Sandro Hawke: present-= Wallace

08:20:21 <sandro> present-= Bijan

Sandro Hawke: present-= Bijan

08:20:42 <MarkusK_> zhe: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect

Zhe Wu: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect

08:21:20 <MarkusK_> boris: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing

Boris Motik: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing

08:21:30 <MarkusK_> ... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them

... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them

08:21:43 <MarkusK_> ... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases

... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases

08:22:03 <MarkusK_> ... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL

... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL

08:23:00 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:23:01 <MarkusK_> schneid: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining

Michael Schneider: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining

08:23:07 <MarkusK_> ... this is a mess even in RDFS

... this is a mess even in RDFS

08:23:25 <MarkusK_> boris: indeed, you cannot even implement RDFS in this way.

Boris Motik: indeed, you cannot even implement RDFS in this way.

08:23:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:23:39 <MarkusK_> pfps: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules

Peter Patel-Schneider: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules

08:24:06 <MarkusK_> ivan: I agree with all of these considerations

Ivan Herman: I agree with all of these considerations

08:24:10 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:24:26 <MarkusK_> ... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OWL RL

... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OWL RL

08:25:28 <MarkusK_> ... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying

... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying

08:25:56 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:26:02 <MarkusK_> ... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything

... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything

08:26:23 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL

Boris Motik: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL

08:26:38 <MarkusK_> ... rewritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice

... rewritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice

08:27:41 <MarkusK_> boris: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway

Boris Motik: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway

08:28:33 <MarkusK_> ... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf

... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf

08:28:57 <MarkusK_> ... the rules placing owl:thing/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there

... the rules placing owl:thing/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there

08:29:34 <MarkusK_> ... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9

... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9

08:29:39 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:30:01 <MarkusK_> ... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing

... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing

08:30:12 <MarkusK_> ivan: there might be gurther rules that are problematic

Ivan Herman: there might be gurther rules that are problematic

08:30:16 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

08:30:41 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:30:58 <MarkusK_> michael: the rule that everything is in owl:Thing (or rdfs:Resource) is already a rule in RDFS

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: the rule that everything is in owl:Thing (or rdfs:Resource) is already a rule in RDFS

08:31:05 <IanH> ack zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack zhe

08:31:08 <MarkusK_> ivan: indeed, but it is not here yet

Ivan Herman: indeed, but it is not here yet

08:31:08 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:31:34 <MarkusK_> zhe: Pfps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain?

Zhe Wu: Pfps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain?

08:32:24 <pfps> example of the problem -

Peter Patel-Schneider: example of the problem -

08:32:25 <MarkusK_> boris: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL

Boris Motik: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL

08:32:34 <pfps> - ontology  - individual a is in class C

Peter Patel-Schneider: - ontology - individual a is in class C

08:32:43 <pfps> - query - is a in owl:Thing

Peter Patel-Schneider: - query - is a in owl:Thing

08:32:57 <pfps> - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules

Peter Patel-Schneider: - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules

08:33:08 <pfps> - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect

Peter Patel-Schneider: - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect

08:33:16 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:33:32 <MarkusK_> boris: you would want to reason with a statement like

Boris Motik: you would want to reason with a statement like

08:33:35 <MarkusK_> ... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent )

... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent )

08:33:57 <MarkusK_> ... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing

... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing

08:34:51 <MarkusK_> ian: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method

Ian Horrocks: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method

08:34:54 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

08:35:31 <MarkusK_> ivan: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store

Ivan Herman: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store

08:35:52 <MarkusK_> ian: anyone not happy with the current proposal?

Ian Horrocks: anyone not happy with the current proposal?

08:36:07 <MarkusK_> zhe: I think I am okay with this

Zhe Wu: I think I am okay with this

08:36:25 <MarkusK_> ... we already have to cope with some similar issues

... we already have to cope with some similar issues

08:36:57 <MarkusK_> ian: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document

Ian Horrocks: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document

08:37:18 <MarkusK_> boris: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed

Boris Motik: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed

08:37:39 <MarkusK_> ... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms

... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms

08:38:02 <MarkusK_> zhe: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing?

Zhe Wu: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing?

08:38:50 <MarkusK_> boris: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set

Boris Motik: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set

08:39:22 <MarkusK_> michael: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed?

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed?

08:39:44 <MarkusK_> boris: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed)

Boris Motik: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed)

08:39:47 <Zhe> great

Zhe Wu: great

08:40:19 <MarkusK_> boris: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL

Boris Motik: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL

08:40:30 <MarkusK_> ivan: weren't there other constructs as well?

Ivan Herman: weren't there other constructs as well?

08:40:38 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think so

Boris Motik: I do not think so

08:41:41 <MarkusK_> ivan: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in

Ivan Herman: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in

08:41:54 <IanH> PROPOSAL: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.

08:41:59 <MarkusK_> boris: right but those are not problematic

Boris Motik: right but those are not problematic

08:42:15 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

08:42:18 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

08:42:19 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

08:42:21 <MarkusK_> markus: +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

08:42:23 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

08:42:25 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

08:42:27 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

08:42:29 <Christine> +1

Christine Golbreich: +1

08:42:34 <Achille> +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

08:42:41 <Zhe> +1 (Oracle)

Zhe Wu: +1 (Oracle)

08:42:53 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

08:42:56 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

08:43:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.

08:43:40 <MarkusK_> Coffee break

Coffee break

08:55:19 <Zhe> zakim, mute me

(No events recorded for 11 minutes)

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

08:55:19 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted

09:17:27 <sandro> scribe: bernardo

(No events recorded for 22 minutes)

(Scribe set to Bernardo Cuenca Grau)

09:18:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN

09:18:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137

09:18:23 <bernardo> alanr: first question concerns backwards compatibility

Alan Ruttenberg: first question concerns backwards compatibility

09:18:23 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1

3. ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1

09:18:41 <bernardo> alanr: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports

Alan Ruttenberg: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports

09:20:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

09:20:49 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports

Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports

09:21:15 <bernardo> alanr: second question concerns repairs

Alan Ruttenberg: second question concerns repairs

09:21:36 <bernardo> alanr: repairs in the presence of imports

Alan Ruttenberg: repairs in the presence of imports

09:21:50 <bernardo> alanr: there is a proposal I made

Alan Ruttenberg: there is a proposal I made

09:22:27 <bernardo> alanr: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include

Alan Ruttenberg: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include

09:22:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

09:22:51 <bernardo> bmotik: alan was referring to validity syntactically

Boris Motik: alan was referring to validity syntactically

09:23:25 <bernardo> bmotik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue

Boris Motik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue

09:23:48 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing

Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing

09:24:03 <sandro> Boris: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not.

Boris Motik: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

09:24:30 <bernardo> bmotik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis

Boris Motik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis

09:24:50 <bernardo> IanH: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue

Ian Horrocks: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue

09:25:01 <sandro> Ian: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do?

Ian Horrocks: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

09:25:29 <bernardo> alanr: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility

Alan Ruttenberg: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility

09:25:55 <bernardo> alanr: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations

Alan Ruttenberg: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations

09:25:56 <sandro> Alan: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view).     It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL.

Alan Ruttenberg: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view). It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

09:26:07 <bernardo> alanr: there are two proposals

Alan Ruttenberg: there are two proposals

09:26:25 <bernardo> alanr: we should not depend on XML

Alan Ruttenberg: we should not depend on XML

09:26:35 <sandro> fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism

Sandro Hawke: fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism

09:26:55 <bernardo> alanr: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping

Alan Ruttenberg: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping

09:26:59 <sandro> fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things.

Sandro Hawke: fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things.

09:28:39 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart

Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart

09:29:02 <bernardo> bmotik: if we throw these away we are unsound

Boris Motik: if we throw these away we are unsound

09:30:02 <bernardo> peter: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class

Peter Patel-Schneider: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class

09:30:15 <bernardo> bmotik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary

Boris Motik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary

09:30:28 <bernardo> bmotik: Classes have to be declared

Boris Motik: Classes have to be declared

09:30:50 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes

Boris Motik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes

09:31:46 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2

Boris Motik: O1 imports O2

09:32:09 <bernardo> bmotik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class

Boris Motik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class

09:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P

Boris Motik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P

09:33:56 <bernardo> If we throw the type of C, parsing fails

If we throw the type of C, parsing fails

09:34:11 <bernardo> alanr: we can add a new ontology

Alan Ruttenberg: we can add a new ontology

09:34:21 <bernardo> O3, which is imported by O1

O3, which is imported by O1

09:34:44 <bernardo> O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class

O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class

09:35:09 <bernardo> bmotik: parsing would still fails

Boris Motik: parsing would still fails

09:35:35 <bernardo> bmotik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself

Boris Motik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself

09:36:20 <bernardo> alanr: what if O1 and O3 import each other?

Alan Ruttenberg: what if O1 and O3 import each other?

09:36:32 <bernardo> bmotik: it would still fail

Boris Motik: it would still fail

09:36:48 <bernardo> bmotik: you would need an import between O2 and O3

Boris Motik: you would need an import between O2 and O3

09:37:00 <bernardo> bmotik: then what alan proposes would help

Boris Motik: then what alan proposes would help

09:37:28 <bernardo> alanr: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design

Alan Ruttenberg: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design

09:38:34 <bernardo> peter: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class

Peter Patel-Schneider: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class

09:39:40 <bernardo> IanH: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work

Ian Horrocks: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work

09:40:01 <bernardo> alanr: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection

Alan Ruttenberg: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection

09:40:45 <bernardo> bmotik: the second solution would work

Boris Motik: the second solution would work

09:41:00 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2

Boris Motik: O1 imports O2

09:41:20 <bernardo> with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class

with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class

09:41:37 <bernardo> bmotik: we want to make O2 valid

Boris Motik: we want to make O2 valid

09:42:05 <bernardo> bmotik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair

Boris Motik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair

09:42:24 <bernardo> bmotik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class

Boris Motik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class

09:42:35 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 is not an ontology is a document

Boris Motik: O2 is not an ontology is a document

09:42:44 <bernardo> bmotik: O3 is an actual ontology

Boris Motik: O3 is an actual ontology

09:42:52 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with this

Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with this

09:43:04 <bernardo> IanH: should this be a proposal to resolve?

Ian Horrocks: should this be a proposal to resolve?

09:43:19 <bernardo> peter: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism

Peter Patel-Schneider: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism

09:43:26 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

09:43:47 <bernardo> bmotik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented

Boris Motik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented

09:44:08 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing

Boris Motik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing

09:44:19 <bernardo> bmotik: include should be something that happens in RDF

Boris Motik: include should be something that happens in RDF

09:45:12 <bernardo> ivan: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples

Ivan Herman: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples

09:45:35 <bernardo> bmotik: this is something that only concerns the RDF

Boris Motik: this is something that only concerns the RDF

09:45:56 <bernardo> IanH: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML

Ian Horrocks: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML

09:46:14 <bernardo> ivan: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this

Ivan Herman: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this

09:46:49 <bernardo> mschneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a big step

Michael Schneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a big step

09:47:10 <bernardo> IanH: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism?

Ian Horrocks: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism?

09:47:20 <bernardo> mschneider: is it worth it?

Michael Schneider: is it worth it?

09:48:02 <bernardo> ivan: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation

Ivan Herman: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation

09:48:24 <bernardo> ivan: it is doable, but not easy

Ivan Herman: it is doable, but not easy

09:48:50 <bernardo> bmotik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include''

Boris Motik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include''

09:49:06 <bernardo> ivan: in practice it will not be supported

Ivan Herman: in practice it will not be supported

09:49:43 <bernardo> alanr: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion

Alan Ruttenberg: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion

09:49:51 <bernardo> alanr: it is more a processing change

Alan Ruttenberg: it is more a processing change

09:49:57 <bernardo> alanr: it is a big win

Alan Ruttenberg: it is a big win

09:50:49 <bernardo> mschneider: this is kind of a border case

Michael Schneider: this is kind of a border case

09:51:15 <bernardo> mschneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap

Michael Schneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap

09:51:27 <bernardo> peter: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF

Peter Patel-Schneider: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF

09:51:35 <bernardo> alanr: I disagree

Alan Ruttenberg: I disagree

09:52:14 <bernardo> alanr: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL

Alan Ruttenberg: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL

09:52:39 <sandro> alan: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL.   This is something very useful.

Alan Ruttenberg: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL. This is something very useful. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

09:52:40 <bernardo> bmotik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document

Boris Motik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document

09:52:57 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on

Boris Motik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on

09:53:51 <bernardo> alanr: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world

Alan Ruttenberg: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world

09:54:09 <bernardo> ivan: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking

Ivan Herman: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking

09:54:31 <bernardo> ivan: the consequences are unclear

Ivan Herman: the consequences are unclear

09:56:32 <bernardo> mschneider: It is a big change late in the process

Michael Schneider: It is a big change late in the process

09:57:41 <bernardo> alanr: this has been going on for a while

Alan Ruttenberg: this has been going on for a while

09:58:13 <bernardo> mschneider: it will confuse people

Michael Schneider: it will confuse people

09:59:02 <bernardo> alanr: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure

Alan Ruttenberg: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure

09:59:12 <bernardo> alanr: Peter proposed another mechanism

Alan Ruttenberg: Peter proposed another mechanism

09:59:29 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem

Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem

10:00:01 <bernardo> IanH: Strawpol

Ian Horrocks: Strawpol

10:01:29 <bernardo> ivan: today we could identify the problem

Ivan Herman: today we could identify the problem

10:02:00 <bernardo> ivan: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism

Ivan Herman: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism

10:02:16 <bernardo> ivan: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle

Ivan Herman: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle

10:02:58 <bernardo> alanr: there is another proposal on the table

Alan Ruttenberg: there is another proposal on the table

10:03:18 <bernardo> alanr: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure

Alan Ruttenberg: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure

10:03:30 <bernardo> bmotik: alan's proposal is ill-defined

Boris Motik: alan's proposal is ill-defined

10:03:57 <bernardo> bmotik: it would require a big change in the mapping

Boris Motik: it would require a big change in the mapping

10:04:24 <bernardo> ivan: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure

Ivan Herman: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure

10:04:39 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology

Boris Motik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology

10:04:57 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing

Boris Motik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing

10:06:12 <bernardo> alanr: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology

Alan Ruttenberg: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology

10:06:52 <bernardo> bmotik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class

Boris Motik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class

10:07:00 <bernardo> and O2 and O3 import O1

and O2 and O3 import O1

10:07:25 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class

Boris Motik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class

10:07:53 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break

Boris Motik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break

10:08:36 <bernardo> ivan: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves

Ivan Herman: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves

10:08:59 <bernardo> bmotik: this is how people do it

Boris Motik: this is how people do it

10:09:34 <bernardo> ivan: I am not convinced

Ivan Herman: I am not convinced

10:09:52 <bernardo> ivan: imagine modularizing an ontology

Ivan Herman: imagine modularizing an ontology

10:10:05 <bernardo> ivan: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology

Ivan Herman: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology

10:10:28 <bernardo> ivan: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself

Ivan Herman: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself

10:11:39 <bernardo> alan gives example

alan gives example

10:12:51 <bernardo> peter: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology

Peter Patel-Schneider: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology

10:13:25 <bernardo> alan: this doesn't matter in practice

Alan Ruttenberg: this doesn't matter in practice

10:13:53 <bernardo> sandro: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal?

Sandro Hawke: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal?

10:14:12 <bernardo> IanH: we now have two proposals.

Ian Horrocks: we now have two proposals.

10:14:54 <bernardo> IanH: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal)

Ian Horrocks: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal)

10:17:05 <bernardo> mschneider makes a summary of the proposals

mschneider makes a summary of the proposals

10:18:05 <bernardo> ivan: I haven't heard anything convincing about  the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself

Ivan Herman: I haven't heard anything convincing about the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself

10:18:28 <bernardo> bmotik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is

Boris Motik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is

10:19:13 <bernardo> bmotik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL

Boris Motik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL

10:19:38 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology

Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology

10:20:02 <bernardo> bmotik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file

Boris Motik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file

10:20:55 <bernardo> bmotik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that

Boris Motik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that

10:21:33 <bernardo> Achille: it seems that the spec already forces you to look at declarations in the import closure

Achille Fokoue: it seems that the spec already forces you to look at declarations in the import closure

10:22:08 <bernardo> IanH: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it

Ian Horrocks: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it

10:23:55 <bernardo> ivan: are you afraid of ``diamond-shaped'' import path?

Ivan Herman: are you afraid of ``diamond-shaped'' import path?

10:24:03 <bernardo> bmotik: that is partly

Boris Motik: that is partly

10:25:23 <bernardo> bmotik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies

Boris Motik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies

10:27:00 <bernardo> q+

q+

10:28:51 <bernardo> boris stands up and draws picture

boris stands up and draws picture

10:29:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

10:30:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

10:30:38 <IanH> ack bernardo

Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo

10:32:20 <bernardo> alanr: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies

Alan Ruttenberg: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies

10:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent

Boris Motik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent

10:33:28 <bernardo> bmotik: we need two logical relationships between documents

Boris Motik: we need two logical relationships between documents

10:33:39 <bernardo> bmotik: one is imports which works on ontologies

Boris Motik: one is imports which works on ontologies

10:34:00 <alanr> Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document

Alan Ruttenberg: Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document

10:34:09 <bernardo> bmotik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes

Boris Motik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes

10:35:17 <bernardo> IanH: we are doing some sort of ``repair''

Ian Horrocks: we are doing some sort of ``repair''

10:36:13 <bernardo> IanH: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors?

Ian Horrocks: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors?

10:36:36 <sandro> Alan: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents".       Not just this "ontology"=="document" view.

Alan Ruttenberg: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents". Not just this "ontology"=="document" view. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:37:16 <bernardo> bmotik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology

Boris Motik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology

10:37:51 <bernardo> bmotik: we should say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly

Boris Motik: we should say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly

10:38:59 <bernardo> bmotik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies

Boris Motik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies

10:39:43 <bernardo> bmotik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports

Boris Motik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports

10:41:14 <bernardo> mschneider: I dont see from the structural spec that an ontology in functional syntax is actually a self contained ontology

Michael Schneider: I dont see from the structural spec that an ontology in functional syntax is actually a self contained ontology

10:41:41 <pfps> Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping

Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping

10:42:40 <bernardo> alanr: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things

Alan Ruttenberg: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things

10:43:14 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

10:43:35 <bernardo> bmotik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies

Boris Motik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies

10:45:59 <bernardo> ivan: we are back to the same idea of inclusion

Ivan Herman: we are back to the same idea of inclusion

10:47:47 <sandro> MarkusK: I like this:    Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms.

Markus Krötzsch: I like this: Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:47:50 <pfps> markus: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports

Markus Krötzsch: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ]

10:48:21 <bernardo> alanr: I support Markus's point of view

Alan Ruttenberg: I support Markus's point of view

10:48:47 <bernardo> alanr: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports

Alan Ruttenberg: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports

10:51:14 <bernardo> ivan: what about the database example boris mentioned?

Ivan Herman: what about the database example boris mentioned?

10:53:27 <bernardo> markus: what happens with document transformation?

Markus Krötzsch: what happens with document transformation?

10:54:05 <bernardo> bmotik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology

Boris Motik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology

10:55:02 <MarkusK_> markus: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes

Markus Krötzsch: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ]

10:55:06 <MarkusK_> bmotik: yes

Boris Motik: yes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ]

10:55:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.

10:55:23 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

10:55:29 <bernardo> bernardo: +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

10:55:32 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

10:55:38 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

10:55:41 <IanH> 0

Ian Horrocks: 0

10:55:45 <Zhe> 0

Zhe Wu: 0

10:55:49 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

10:55:54 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

10:56:03 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

10:56:13 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

10:56:32 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)

10:56:55 <alanr> Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence

Alan Ruttenberg: Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence

10:57:03 <Christine> 0

Christine Golbreich: 0

10:57:15 <schneid> 0

Michael Schneider: 0

10:57:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.

10:58:21 <sandro> Lunch

Sandro Hawke: Lunch

10:58:28 <Zakim> -Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe

12:00:53 <ivan> scribenick: Achille

(No events recorded for 62 minutes)

(Scribe set to Achille Fokoue)

12:01:14 <ivan> zakim, code?

Ivan Herman: zakim, code?

12:01:15 <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

12:01:33 <pfps> zakim, who is here?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here?

12:01:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B

12:01:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, bernardo, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, ivan, bmotik, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, bernardo, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, ivan, bmotik, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

12:02:05 <Zakim> +msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith

12:02:42 <Achille> topic:  Extending annotation framework

4. Extending annotation framework

12:02:52 <Zakim> +baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie

12:03:14 <Achille> alan: issue arising from concern from interop with larger OWL community

Alan Ruttenberg: issue arising from concern from interop with larger OWL community

12:03:20 <Achille> alan: two proposals:

Alan Ruttenberg: two proposals:

12:04:36 <Achille> alan: 1) vocabulary : annotation subproperty, annotation domain and range

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) vocabulary : annotation subproperty, annotation domain and range

12:05:06 <Achille> ... first level: support it in the syntax without any semantics

... first level: support it in the syntax without any semantics

12:05:23 <Achille> ... issue: divergence with OWL RL

... issue: divergence with OWL RL

12:05:34 <Achille> 2nd level: give it some semantics in OWL

2nd level: give it some semantics in OWL

12:05:57 <Achille> ... it will add a type to the owl dl world

... it will add a type to the owl dl world

12:06:24 <Achille> ... let do it for legacy consideration.

... let do it for legacy consideration.

12:06:44 <Achille> ... and introduce new vocabulary

... and introduce new vocabulary

12:07:43 <Achille> ivan: user of annotation property used them in a way that is not 100 % conformamt in OWL

Ivan Herman: user of annotation property used them in a way that is not 100 % conformamt in OWL

12:08:06 <Achille> ivan: for annotations, we can just let it the way it stand now

Ivan Herman: for annotations, we can just let it the way it stand now

12:08:58 <Achille> ivan: they use it in a way not mandated by OWL or RDF

Ivan Herman: they use it in a way not mandated by OWL or RDF

12:09:56 <Achille> alan: a better path:just say that annotation properties do not work as integraty constraints

Alan Ruttenberg: a better path:just say that annotation properties do not work as integraty constraints

12:10:45 <Achille> alan: my proposal: annotation properties have the standard RDF semantics

Alan Ruttenberg: my proposal: annotation properties have the standard RDF semantics

12:11:15 <Achille> boris: two prob about addiing semantis:

Boris Motik: two prob about addiing semantis:

12:11:31 <Achille> ... 1) what would be the real semantics? this is really difficult

... 1) what would be the real semantics? this is really difficult

12:12:26 <Achille> ... 2) from the point of view of their semantics, why would you need a new construct? why not use metamodeling ?

... 2) from the point of view of their semantics, why would you need a new construct? why not use metamodeling ?

12:13:06 <Achille> ivan: not certain if i need to have any kind of semantics

Ivan Herman: not certain if i need to have any kind of semantics

12:13:52 <Achille> ... i am happy that these annotations are not accessible to OWL DL.

... i am happy that these annotations are not accessible to OWL DL.

12:14:54 <Achille> alan: to answer boris, i would agree with you if there were  no consideration for legacy stuff

Alan Ruttenberg: to answer boris, i would agree with you if there were no consideration for legacy stuff

12:15:20 <Achille> alan: i need a way to have subproperty propagation.

Alan Ruttenberg: i need a way to have subproperty propagation.

12:15:20 <Zakim> +Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe

12:15:42 <IanH> Welcome back Zhe!

Ian Horrocks: Welcome back Zhe!

12:15:45 <Achille> ... we can leave it to tools, but it seems better to have it in the spec for interop. purposes

... we can leave it to tools, but it seems better to have it in the spec for interop. purposes

12:15:58 <Zhe> thanks

Zhe Wu: thanks

12:16:06 <Zhe> zakim, mute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

12:16:06 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted

12:17:21 <Achille> michael:  from the OWL Full point of view, nothing changes, as long as the new constructs are mapped to the existing RDF

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: from the OWL Full point of view, nothing changes, as long as the new constructs are mapped to the existing RDF

12:18:36 <Achille> boris: I am not sure that this is just a legacy issue

Boris Motik: I am not sure that this is just a legacy issue

12:19:30 <Achille> ivan: it would be nice not to consider  SKOS  ontology outside OWL DL because of they use of annotation properties.

Ivan Herman: it would be nice not to consider SKOS ontology outside OWL DL because of they use of annotation properties.

12:20:21 <Achille> bijan: people might be tempted to use punning for annotation as a way around the problem

Bijan Parsia: people might be tempted to use punning for annotation as a way around the problem

12:20:50 <Achille> bijan: I don't think it is a great solution (it means a shadow annotation system)

Bijan Parsia: I don't think it is a great solution (it means a shadow annotation system)

12:21:14 <Achille> ... we can either bless it or explicitly provide an alternative

... we can either bless it or explicitly provide an alternative

12:22:17 <Achille> christine:  This is a case where people will likely go to OWL Full to satisfy their requirements

Christine Golbreich: This is a case where people will likely go to OWL Full to satisfy their requirements

12:22:45 <Achille> ... at the moment, there is no correct solution

... at the moment, there is no correct solution

12:23:51 <Achille> pfps: we did not talk to SKOS about things for which we did not have a solution (like the current problem with annotations)

Peter Patel-Schneider: we did not talk to SKOS about things for which we did not have a solution (like the current problem with annotations)

12:24:38 <Achille> boris: meta-ontology is the proper solution

Boris Motik: meta-ontology is the proper solution

12:25:12 <Achille> ... inappropriate to mix annotations with your domain of discourse.

... inappropriate to mix annotations with your domain of discourse.

12:25:46 <Achille> ... 1 ontology about the domain and another about the annotations seems to be an appropriate solution

... 1 ontology about the domain and another about the annotations seems to be an appropriate solution

12:26:50 <Achille> ... we should not adopt a solution that would rule out this approach of meta-ontology

... we should not adopt a solution that would rule out this approach of meta-ontology

12:27:35 <Achille> markus: another issue: you can find if it is an object or data propery

Markus Krötzsch: another issue: you can find if it is an object or data propery

12:28:00 <Achille> alan: not clear if the right solution for annotation is

Alan Ruttenberg: not clear if the right solution for annotation is

12:28:28 <Achille> ... I do not think we rule out meta-ontology approach by giving semantics to annotations

... I do not think we rule out meta-ontology approach by giving semantics to annotations

12:29:53 <Achille> ... 1) annotation property allowed if there is another axiom making them data property

... 1) annotation property allowed if there is another axiom making them data property

12:30:25 <Achille> ... 2) annotation properties could have such little semantics that they would not be problematic

... 2) annotation properties could have such little semantics that they would not be problematic

12:31:05 <Achille> .. . my proposal for annotation: sub property, domain, and range and the same semantics as in OWL DL

.. . my proposal for annotation: sub property, domain, and range and the same semantics as in OWL DL

12:31:44 <Achille> michael: if we go with alan's proposal, the consequences are not clear to me

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: if we go with alan's proposal, the consequences are not clear to me

12:32:03 <Achille> ... and it seems that there might be a lot of unknown consequences

... and it seems that there might be a lot of unknown consequences

12:34:19 <Achille> boris: how about annotation on annotations?

Boris Motik: how about annotation on annotations?

12:34:42 <Achille> boris: how about annotations on axioms?

Boris Motik: how about annotations on axioms?

12:35:13 <Achille> alan: I do not see any need for annotation of axioms because I only care about legacy issue

Alan Ruttenberg: I do not see any need for annotation of axioms because I only care about legacy issue

12:36:37 <Achille> michael:  annotations will be used to annotate anything with anything and will not respect restrictions imposed by any spec.

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: annotations will be used to annotate anything with anything and will not respect restrictions imposed by any spec.

12:37:22 <Achille> boris: it is safer to avoid giving a semantics for annotations

Boris Motik: it is safer to avoid giving a semantics for annotations

12:37:51 <Achille> ... we should have a clear statement like they have no semantics at all.

... we should have a clear statement like they have no semantics at all.

12:38:08 <bernardo> q+

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: q+

12:38:23 <Achille> alan: to michael, the legacy ontologies are not OWL DL since you could not have annotations on axioms

Alan Ruttenberg: to michael, the legacy ontologies are not OWL DL since you could not have annotations on axioms

12:38:25 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

12:38:59 <Achille> alan: in case where users do not respect the rules, they will simply have invalid ontologies

Alan Ruttenberg: in case where users do not respect the rules, they will simply have invalid ontologies

12:40:31 <Achille> alan: in SKOS,  you can see that current practice does not respect the boundary that boris describes

Alan Ruttenberg: in SKOS, you can see that current practice does not respect the boundary that boris describes

12:41:50 <Achille> bijan: I prefer to give a little now  (something like alan's proposal) and let the users migrate later

Bijan Parsia: I prefer to give a little now (something like alan's proposal) and let the users migrate later

12:43:24 <Achille> bernardo: I can see you point with compatibility issue, but people do not seem to care about the semantics of annotation so far

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I can see you point with compatibility issue, but people do not seem to care about the semantics of annotation so far

12:43:41 <Achille> boris: it is not my business fixing SKOS

Boris Motik: it is not my business fixing SKOS

12:46:14 <Achille> michael: I'm happy with subclass, domain and range, but giving semantics means that reasoners which currently just get rid of annotation would have to deal with them now

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: I'm happy with subclass, domain and range, but giving semantics means that reasoners which currently just get rid of annotation would have to deal with them now

12:46:57 <Achille> christine: not sure why we think that users would need range for annotation

Christine Golbreich: not sure why we think that users would need range for annotation

12:47:13 <Achille> ... they really want constraints not range

... they really want constraints not range

12:47:41 <Achille> ... I do not understand why we need to choice between two bad solutions

... I do not understand why we need to choice between two bad solutions

12:48:32 <Achille> alan: 1) to bernado, tools ignoring stuff does not mean that users also do

Alan Ruttenberg: 1) to bernado, tools ignoring stuff does not mean that users also do

12:48:49 <Achille> ... this attitude toward annotation hurts us

... this attitude toward annotation hurts us

12:49:15 <Achille> ... 2) to christine, I do not see it as a bad solution. It will bring more customer to OWL

... 2) to christine, I do not see it as a bad solution. It will bring more customer to OWL

12:49:53 <Achille> ...3) I do not think that mandating annotations to be either object or data properties helps

...3) I do not think that mandating annotations to be either object or data properties helps

12:50:18 <Achille> bijan: yes, range on annotations are often intended as constraints

Bijan Parsia: yes, range on annotations are often intended as constraints

12:51:04 <Achille> ... the biggest obstacle is that we do not even make it possible to specify them

... the biggest obstacle is that we do not even make it possible to specify them

12:51:59 <Achille> alan: I would agree with a weaker proposal as a first step

Alan Ruttenberg: I would agree with a weaker proposal as a first step

12:52:40 <Achille> ianh: what do people thing about a weaker version of alan's proposal?

Ian Horrocks: what do people thing about a weaker version of alan's proposal?

12:54:25 <Achille> ianh: the proposal: we will have subannotation, annotation range and domain, they will have no semantics in OWL DL, but the normal semantics in OWL Full

Ian Horrocks: the proposal: we will have subannotation, annotation range and domain, they will have no semantics in OWL DL, but the normal semantics in OWL Full

12:55:38 <bmotik> STRAWPOLL: Who is happy with adding three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side

STRAWPOLL: Who is happy with adding three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side

12:55:52 <bmotik> +1

Boris Motik: +1

12:55:53 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

12:55:56 <alanr> +1

Alan Ruttenberg: +1

12:55:56 <bijan> +1

Bijan Parsia: +1

12:55:59 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

12:55:59 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

12:56:01 <Achille> Achille: +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

12:56:05 <Zhe> 1

Zhe Wu: 1

12:56:06 <bmotik> +1 for Ivan

Boris Motik: +1 for Ivan

12:56:08 <pfps> +x where x > 0

Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x > 0

12:56:10 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

12:56:15 <baojie> 0

Jie Bao: 0

12:56:16 <Christine> 0

Christine Golbreich: 0

12:56:22 <IanH> 0

Ian Horrocks: 0

12:56:23 <wallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

12:56:23 <sandro> 0

Sandro Hawke: 0

12:56:25 <msmith> 0

Michael Smith: 0

12:56:34 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?

Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call?

12:56:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

12:56:50 <Achille> ianh: it looks like we have a potential solution

Ian Horrocks: it looks like we have a potential solution

12:57:28 <Achille> alan: is there any support for adding semantics to annotation range, domain and subannotation?

Alan Ruttenberg: is there any support for adding semantics to annotation range, domain and subannotation?

12:57:52 <Achille> ianh: I will formally object for adding semantics for them

Ian Horrocks: I will formally object for adding semantics for them

12:58:18 <sandro> Bijan is lying on the fence

Sandro Hawke: Bijan is lying on the fence

12:58:55 <Achille> bijan: I'm 100% against adding semantics

Bijan Parsia: I'm 100% against adding semantics

13:01:02 <Achille> christine: these are  new constructs that could be very difficult to explain to users

Christine Golbreich: these are new constructs that could be very difficult to explain to users

13:01:52 <Achille> alan: can we have some sort of conformance for tools in terms of preserving annotations?

Alan Ruttenberg: can we have some sort of conformance for tools in terms of preserving annotations?

13:02:32 <Christine> what will be difficult is to explain "AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side"

Christine Golbreich: what will be difficult is to explain "AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side"

13:03:01 <Achille> alan: it is related to roundtripping. I want to encourage tools to maintain annotations

Alan Ruttenberg: it is related to roundtripping. I want to encourage tools to maintain annotations

13:03:41 <Achille> ianh: should we finish with this proposal?

Ian Horrocks: should we finish with this proposal?

13:04:55 <Achille> boris: annotations are part of axioms. They are first class citizens. The spec does not state that they are in anyway less important than other axioms

Boris Motik: annotations are part of axioms. They are first class citizens. The spec does not state that they are in anyway less important than other axioms

13:05:19 <msmith> +1 to bijan, bernardo

Michael Smith: +1 to bijan, bernardo

13:05:54 <Achille> bernardo: i predict that annotations will no longer be routinely ignored by tools

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: i predict that annotations will no longer be routinely ignored by tools

13:06:16 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

PROPOSED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the starndard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

13:06:43 <pfps> +x where x>=1 (AUL)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x>=1 (AUL)

13:06:58 <IanH> PROPOSAL: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

PROPOSED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

13:07:08 <bijan> +1 (Manchester) before the wireless goes down

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) before the wireless goes down

13:07:10 <wallace> +1

Evan Wallace: +1

13:07:15 <Achille> Achille: +1

Achille Fokoue: +1

13:07:16 <pfps> +x where x>=1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +x where x>=1 (ALU)

13:07:18 <ivan_> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

13:07:18 <Zhe> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

13:07:20 <Rinke> +1

Rinke Hoekstra: +1

13:07:21 <Christine> 0

Christine Golbreich: 0

13:07:24 <schneid> +1

Michael Schneider: +1

13:07:29 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)

13:07:31 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

13:07:39 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford)

13:07:55 <msmith> +0

Michael Smith: +0

13:08:00 <baojie> 0 (RPI)

Jie Bao: 0 (RPI)

13:08:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

RESOLVED: We add three types of axioms -- AnnotationDomain, AnnotationRange, SubAnnotationPropertyOf -- to OWL 2 DL; map them to the standard RDF vocabulary; no semantics on the DL side.

13:10:45 <Achille> ianh: we are can move to the discussion on if/when to move the document to last call

Ian Horrocks: we are can move to the discussion on if/when to move the document to last call

13:10:47 <bmotik> ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F

ACTION: bmotik2 to Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F

13:10:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F [on Boris Motik - due 2008-10-31].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-238 - Implement the resolutions from the 4F2F [on Boris Motik - due 2008-10-31].

13:10:57 <Achille> topic: Proposal to move to last call

5. Proposal to move to last call

13:12:13 <bmotik> scribenick: bmotik2

(Scribe set to Boris Motik)

13:12:19 <bmotik> scribenick: bmotik
13:13:01 <bmotik> ianh: How to approach this?

Ian Horrocks: How to approach this?

13:13:21 <bmotik> alanr: The goal here is to get people's views about the schedule to LC

Alan Ruttenberg: The goal here is to get people's views about the schedule to LC

13:14:02 <bmotik> alanr: In my view, the core 5 documents are (modulo the resolutions) pretty much ready to go

Alan Ruttenberg: In my view, the core 5 documents are (modulo the resolutions) pretty much ready to go

13:14:25 <bmotik> alanr: This does make the assumption that the n-ary document would be fully self-contained

Alan Ruttenberg: This does make the assumption that the n-ary document would be fully self-contained

13:14:50 <bmotik> alanr: It would contain the RDF Mapping. It would depend only on the hooks in the core spec

Alan Ruttenberg: It would contain the RDF Mapping. It would depend only on the hooks in the core spec

13:15:20 <bmotik> alanr: I propose that we hand over to Sandro these documents at the end of November

Alan Ruttenberg: I propose that we hand over to Sandro these documents at the end of November

13:15:25 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

13:15:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

13:15:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, dlm, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, dlm, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, baojie, bijan, Rinke, schneid, sandro, Christine, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

13:15:54 <bmotik> alanr: In Profiles, there is still some tension about whether the rules are an implementation mechanism or a language specification

Alan Ruttenberg: In Profiles, there is still some tension about whether the rules are an implementation mechanism or a language specification

13:16:07 <bmotik> alanr: THis should be clarified for the Profiles

Alan Ruttenberg: THis should be clarified for the Profiles

13:17:04 <bmotik> bijan: We have two choices to address this.

Bijan Parsia: We have two choices to address this.

13:17:15 <bmotik> bijan: We can (1) delay the LC

Bijan Parsia: We can (1) delay the LC

13:17:37 <bmotik> bijan: We can (2) go to LC and have a quick fix later if we change our minds

Bijan Parsia: We can (2) go to LC and have a quick fix later if we change our minds

13:17:52 <bmotik> alanr: I'd like to get the ready documents out right away and focus on that

Alan Ruttenberg: I'd like to get the ready documents out right away and focus on that

13:18:22 <bmotik> alanr: The Conformance is another document that should go to LC later

Alan Ruttenberg: The Conformance is another document that should go to LC later

13:18:34 <bmotik> alanr: Adjusting the conformance statements might be some more work

Alan Ruttenberg: Adjusting the conformance statements might be some more work

13:18:50 <bmotik> alanr: We might spend a part of November reviewing the test cases

Alan Ruttenberg: We might spend a part of November reviewing the test cases

13:19:49 <bmotik> alanr: Ivan raised the question of whether by going with Profiles to LC separated we'd be sending a message to the community that the Profiles are somehow less important

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan raised the question of whether by going with Profiles to LC separated we'd be sending a message to the community that the Profiles are somehow less important

13:19:56 <bmotik> alanr: I'd blog related to that

Alan Ruttenberg: I'd blog related to that

13:20:42 <bmotik> ivan: I think it would be a problem to go to LC with the first 5 problems without the Conformance

Ivan Herman: I think it would be a problem to go to LC with the first 5 problems without the Conformance

13:21:30 <bmotik> ivan: The document itself could go to LC and we would be able to review the test cases later

Ivan Herman: The document itself could go to LC and we would be able to review the test cases later

13:21:44 <bmotik> ivan: I don't see a problem with Profiles

Ivan Herman: I don't see a problem with Profiles

13:22:01 <bmotik> ivan: I would not be shocked by going with the Profiles to LC

Ivan Herman: I would not be shocked by going with the Profiles to LC

13:22:10 <bmotik> rinke: I agree with Ivan

Rinke Hoekstra: I agree with Ivan

13:22:37 <bmotik> christine: I think we are ready to go

Christine Golbreich: I think we are ready to go

13:22:56 <bmotik> ianh: How do you feel about Conformance and Profiles

Ian Horrocks: How do you feel about Conformance and Profiles

13:23:01 <bmotik> christine: I don't know

Christine Golbreich: I don't know

13:23:10 <bmotik> ewallace: I agree with Ivan

Evan Wallace: I agree with Ivan

13:23:36 <bmotik> bijan: I also think we could go with all of these documents

Bijan Parsia: I also think we could go with all of these documents

13:24:03 <bmotik> Achille: OK for everything except for RDF- Based semantics and Conformance; I don't know for these

Achille Fokoue: OK for everything except for RDF- Based semantics and Conformance; I don't know for these

13:25:05 <bmotik> mschnei: Direct Semantics and RDF Mapping is OK, I believe the XML Syntax is also OK, RDF-Based Semantics needs some more work. I'd prefer not to go to LC before Christmas

Michael Schneider: Direct Semantics and RDF Mapping is OK, I believe the XML Syntax is also OK, RDF-Based Semantics needs some more work. I'd prefer not to go to LC before Christmas

13:25:57 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

13:25:59 <bmotik> MarkusK_: I am fine with the core 5. Profiles can go to LC and we can have a short cycle and come back to potential issues. Regarding Test Cases, I'd like to ask msmith about it

Markus Krötzsch: I am fine with the core 5. Profiles can go to LC and we can have a short cycle and come back to potential issues. Regarding Test Cases, I'd like to ask msmith about it

13:26:01 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

13:26:24 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

13:26:29 <bmotik> Ianh: Sandro, can you remind us of a publishing moratorium?

Ian Horrocks: Sandro, can you remind us of a publishing moratorium?

13:26:35 <bmotik> sandro: I don't think there is one

Sandro Hawke: I don't think there is one

13:26:42 <IanH> I will come to you in a moment Mike.

Ian Horrocks: I will come to you in a moment Mike.

13:26:48 <bmotik> Ivan: I think there is one. I would not count on beyond the 15th of DEcember

Ivan Herman: I think there is one. I would not count on beyond the 15th of DEcember

13:26:59 <bmotik> bijan: And it doesn't lift after the 5th of January

Bijan Parsia: And it doesn't lift after the 5th of January

13:27:38 <bmotik> sandro: I don't know the state of Test Cases, but I think it makes sense to treat Conformance with the others

Sandro Hawke: I don't know the state of Test Cases, but I think it makes sense to treat Conformance with the others

13:27:52 <bmotik> sandro: I could go either way regarding the Profiles

Sandro Hawke: I could go either way regarding the Profiles

13:28:00 <IanH> ack bernardo

Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo

13:28:21 <bmotik> bernardo: If the auhtor of the RDF-Based Semantics says it is not ready, I agree with him

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: If the auhtor of the RDF-Based Semantics says it is not ready, I agree with him

13:28:27 <bmotik> bernardo: The rest seems ready

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: The rest seems ready

13:29:04 <bmotik> bernardo: I am worried about an empty section in the Conformance document

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: I am worried about an empty section in the Conformance document

13:29:16 <bmotik> pfps: I think we should push everything and we should push Michael as well

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think we should push everything and we should push Michael as well

13:29:29 <bmotik> mschnei: We need an internal review again

Michael Schneider: We need an internal review again

13:29:34 <bmotik> ianh: Do we?

Ian Horrocks: Do we?

13:29:39 <bmotik> alanr: Would you like it?

Alan Ruttenberg: Would you like it?

13:29:53 <bmotik> mschnei: I believe we need another review

Michael Schneider: I believe we need another review

13:30:14 <bmotik> ivan: He says that there will be some changes now and those have to be properly reviewed

Ivan Herman: He says that there will be some changes now and those have to be properly reviewed

13:30:30 <bmotik> bijan: We need to check the changes, but we don't need a formal review process

Bijan Parsia: We need to check the changes, but we don't need a formal review process

13:30:42 <bmotik> ianh: This is what we decided in our review period

Ian Horrocks: This is what we decided in our review period

13:30:54 <msmith> msmith: I'm comfortable with core 5 + profiles.  On conformance and test, I'm ok going without the test cases, but am a little concerned that the test format, etc. has not been widely reviewed or exercised.  Approving tests will help that.  I will go with group view of Conf&Test

Michael Smith: I'm comfortable with core 5 + profiles. On conformance and test, I'm ok going without the test cases, but am a little concerned that the test format, etc. has not been widely reviewed or exercised. Approving tests will help that. I will go with group view of Conf&Test [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ]

13:30:55 <bmotik> bmotik: We should just ship them

Boris Motik: We should just ship them

13:31:07 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

13:31:12 <bmotik> msmith: I am OK with the core 5 and the Profiles

Michael Smith: I am OK with the core 5 and the Profiles

13:31:36 <bmotik> msmith: I am fine with the Test document without some test cases, but I share Bernardo's concern with some sections be empty

Michael Smith: I am fine with the Test document without some test cases, but I share Bernardo's concern with some sections be empty

13:31:57 <bmotik> msmith: If we move forward, the test format should be subject to change

Michael Smith: If we move forward, the test format should be subject to change

13:32:26 <bmotik> ianh: I am happy with the first 5, I also think we should go with the Profiles, I am on the fence regarding Confomance

Ian Horrocks: I am happy with the first 5, I also think we should go with the Profiles, I am on the fence regarding Confomance

13:32:44 <bmotik> ianh: The test cases are missing to a certain extent

Ian Horrocks: The test cases are missing to a certain extent

13:32:55 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

13:33:00 <bmotik> ianh: I could go with it if other want to

Ian Horrocks: I could go with it if other want to

13:33:09 <bmotik> ivan: LC means that we don't have a design issue open

Ivan Herman: LC means that we don't have a design issue open

13:33:19 <bmotik> ivan: This is what we have in our case

Ivan Herman: This is what we have in our case

13:33:39 <bmotik> sandro: The Conformance part is OK; it's the tests

Sandro Hawke: The Conformance part is OK; it's the tests

13:33:50 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

13:33:53 <bmotik> alanr: We might want to split Test and Conformance

Alan Ruttenberg: We might want to split Test and Conformance

13:34:08 <bmotik> bijan: If we were to split them, then tests should not be a REC document

Bijan Parsia: If we were to split them, then tests should not be a REC document

13:34:43 <bmotik> bijan: msmith, could you get it ready by the end of November?

Bijan Parsia: msmith, could you get it ready by the end of November?

13:34:45 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

13:34:48 <ivan> ack msmith

Ivan Herman: ack msmith

13:34:52 <bmotik> msmith: The end of November yeah

Michael Smith: The end of November yeah

13:34:57 <bmotik> msmith: That should not be a problem

Michael Smith: That should not be a problem

13:35:52 <bmotik> ivan: Why do we have to have the Conformance and Test Case in the format we have?

Ivan Herman: Why do we have to have the Conformance and Test Case in the format we have?

13:36:32 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

13:36:46 <bmotik> ivan: Can we move the tests outside of the T&C document and just insert a pointer to the test suite into the Conformance document?

Ivan Herman: Can we move the tests outside of the T&C document and just insert a pointer to the test suite into the Conformance document?

13:37:18 <bmotik> ianh: Can we at least decide about the first 5?

Ian Horrocks: Can we at least decide about the first 5?

13:37:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "RDF-Based Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers)

PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "RDF-Based Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers)

13:37:29 <bmotik> mschnei: RDF-Based Semantics is not ready

Michael Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics is not ready

13:39:07 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

13:40:14 <bmotik> bijan: If we can't go with the 5, does this mean we'd delay LC?

Bijan Parsia: If we can't go with the 5, does this mean we'd delay LC?

13:40:18 <bmotik> ivan: Yes

Ivan Herman: Yes

13:40:24 <bmotik> ianh: What is not ready?

Ian Horrocks: What is not ready?

13:40:33 <bmotik> mschnei: I am not sure whether it is OK

Michael Schneider: I am not sure whether it is OK

13:40:51 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/0066.html   Publication moratoria for second half of 2008    (23 December - 1 Jan === no pubs)

Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2008AprJun/0066.html Publication moratoria for second half of 2008 (23 December - 1 Jan === no pubs)

13:40:59 <bmotik> ianh: Could we do it in the way it was suggested for Profiles?

Ian Horrocks: Could we do it in the way it was suggested for Profiles?

13:41:12 <bmotik> alanr: What are our expectations for the review?

Alan Ruttenberg: What are our expectations for the review?

13:41:40 <bmotik> alanr: If we did go to LC, we shouldn't make it short because this will include the Christmas period

Alan Ruttenberg: If we did go to LC, we shouldn't make it short because this will include the Christmas period

13:42:04 <bmotik> bijan: By doing it before Christmas, we would have a lonver LC period

Bijan Parsia: By doing it before Christmas, we would have a lonver LC period

13:42:33 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

13:42:33 <bmotik> bijan: I favor a longer review period but also geting a move on it so that we have time for a new cycle

Bijan Parsia: I favor a longer review period but also geting a move on it so that we have time for a new cycle

13:43:07 <bmotik> sandro: The idea that Profiles and the RDF-Based Semantics follow shortly shouldn't be too big a deal

Sandro Hawke: The idea that Profiles and the RDF-Based Semantics follow shortly shouldn't be too big a deal

13:43:33 <bmotik> bernardo: Is it not important that an RDF-Based Semantics will be going to LC in the near future?

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Is it not important that an RDF-Based Semantics will be going to LC in the near future?

13:43:54 <bmotik> bijan: We might release a working draft with the core 4 LC documents

Bijan Parsia: We might release a working draft with the core 4 LC documents

13:43:59 <bmotik> pfps: I agree with Bijan

Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree with Bijan

13:44:27 <bmotik> alanr: It is hard for me to see that the RDF community be offended by publishing the RDF-Based Semantics slightly later

Alan Ruttenberg: It is hard for me to see that the RDF community be offended by publishing the RDF-Based Semantics slightly later

13:44:57 <bmotik> mschnei: The core 4 documents came from a Member Submission, while work on the Full document only started in the WG, so this can be taken as an excuse

Michael Schneider: The core 4 documents came from a Member Submission, while work on the Full document only started in the WG, so this can be taken as an excuse

13:45:11 <bmotik> ianh: I'm hearing now a fairly general consensus

Ian Horrocks: I'm hearing now a fairly general consensus

13:45:20 <bmotik> ivan: I will not lie in the road

Ivan Herman: I will not lie in the road

13:46:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers).   Target publication date December 1.

PROPOSED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1.

13:46:43 <bmotik> boris: +1

Boris Motik: +1

13:46:46 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

13:46:46 <bernardo> +1

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1

13:46:46 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

13:46:55 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

13:47:03 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA)

13:47:08 <sandro> +1 (W3C)

Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C)

13:47:09 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)

Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)

13:47:16 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

13:47:18 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq)

13:47:19 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

13:47:20 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

13:47:20 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)

13:47:20 <wallace> +1 (NIST)

Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)

13:47:21 <msmith> +1 (C&P)

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)

13:47:24 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)

Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford)

13:47:41 <baojie> +1 (RPI)

Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)

13:47:53 <alanr> +1 for baojie :)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 for baojie :)

13:47:55 <bmotik> RESOLVED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1.

RESOLVED: Publish "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "Mapping to RDF Graphs", and "XML Serialization" as LAST CALL Working Drafts, after already-agreed-upon changes have been made and some editial cleanup (and checked by previous reviewers). Target publication date December 1.

13:47:58 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone?

13:47:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, msmith, baojie, Zhe (muted)

13:49:06 <bmotik> PROPOSED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)

PROPOSED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)

13:49:20 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

13:49:23 <ivan> 1 (W3C)

Ivan Herman: 1 (W3C)

13:49:24 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)

Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)

13:49:25 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA)

13:49:26 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

13:49:27 <alanr> + (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: + (Science Commons)

13:49:29 <baojie> +1 (RPI)

Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)

13:49:31 <bmotik> Boris: +1 (Oxford)

Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford)

13:49:34 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

13:49:36 <ivan> +1 (W3C)

Ivan Herman: +1 (W3C)

13:49:37 <Christine> +1(uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1(uvsq)

13:49:43 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

13:49:54 <msmith> +1 (C&P)

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)

13:49:55 <wallace> +1 (NIST)

Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)

13:50:01 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)

13:50:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)

RESOLVED: Publish a Working Draft for the "RDF-Based Semantics" simultaneously (December 1)

13:50:57 <Zhe> sure

Zhe Wu: sure

13:51:07 <Zhe> claps remotely

Zhe Wu: claps remotely

13:51:16 <sandro> sandro: Huge Congratulations Everyone!

Sandro Hawke: Huge Congratulations Everyone! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

13:51:21 <sandro> topic: Profiles Document/ OWL RL

6. Profiles Document/ OWL RL

13:51:39 <Zakim> -Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe

13:51:50 <Zakim> -msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith

14:14:53 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

(No events recorded for 23 minutes)

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

14:14:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie

14:14:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

14:16:46 <Zakim> +msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith

14:16:51 <IanH> About to start again.

Ian Horrocks: About to start again.

14:17:18 <ivan> scribenick: ivan

(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)

14:18:12 <ivan> IanH: it seemed that most people thought the profile was ready, but alan did not

Ian Horrocks: it seemed that most people thought the profile was ready, but alan did not

14:18:21 <ivan> alanr: and ivan wanted to know why

Alan Ruttenberg: and ivan wanted to know why

14:18:49 <ivan> alanr: the datatype reasoning support is a problem, a rule is there to generate all distinct literals

Alan Ruttenberg: the datatype reasoning support is a problem, a rule is there to generate all distinct literals

14:18:57 <ivan> ... it is not practical

... it is not practical

14:19:05 <ivan> ... we could discuss that in some notes

... we could discuss that in some notes

14:19:12 <ivan> ... but it looks like a big hole

... but it looks like a big hole

14:19:32 <ivan> ... maybe we can discuss by reducing expressibility and make it more practical

... maybe we can discuss by reducing expressibility and make it more practical

14:19:53 <ivan> ... it adds n^2 literals

... it adds n^2 literals

14:20:15 <bernardo> q+

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: q+

14:20:16 <ivan> ... if you have a million labels it adds million^2 labeles

... if you have a million labels it adds million^2 labeles

14:20:49 <IanH> zakim, who is here?

Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here?

14:20:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie, msmith

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, baojie, msmith

14:20:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see baojie, Rinke, dlmcg1, schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see baojie, Rinke, dlmcg1, schneid, Christine, sandro, bernardo, MarkusK_, ivan, wallace, IanH, alanr, msmith, Achille, bijan, pfps, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot

14:20:56 <ivan> ... the general tention we have in the document between being logic specificity and implementation guideliness

... the general tention we have in the document between being logic specificity and implementation guideliness

14:20:56 <ivan> ... i try to present that to be more comformatable

... i try to present that to be more comformatable

14:20:56 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

14:21:04 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:21:13 <ivan> ... the target audience for this are those who are not sophisticated developers

... the target audience for this are those who are not sophisticated developers

14:21:29 <ivan> ... and we already have the statement that this will be implemented literaly

... and we already have the statement that this will be implemented literaly

14:21:47 <IanH> ack bernardo

Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo

14:22:09 <ivan> bernardo: the fact we have a langugage means that this language can be implementable nicely

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: the fact we have a langugage means that this language can be implementable nicely

14:22:22 <ivan> ... but the rules do not necessarily means that people will implement there

... but the rules do not necessarily means that people will implement there

14:22:29 <Zakim> +Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe

14:22:38 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:22:41 <ivan> ... the guidelines tell you what kind of reasoning can be done\

... the guidelines tell you what kind of reasoning can be done\

14:22:47 <ivan> ... it can be implemented this way and it will be o.k.

... it can be implemented this way and it will be o.k.

14:22:58 <ivan> .... if you find an implementation that is better that is fine

.... if you find an implementation that is better that is fine

14:23:18 <ivan> pfps: I do not see any problem with the current status

Peter Patel-Schneider: I do not see any problem with the current status

14:23:23 <ivan> ... it is a specification how the language works

... it is a specification how the language works

14:23:33 <ivan> ... we do not have a proposed solution how to fix this

... we do not have a proposed solution how to fix this

14:23:37 <ivan> ... it is done!

... it is done!

14:23:55 <ivan> sandro: somebody made a rif implementation of owl-rl

Sandro Hawke: somebody made a rif implementation of owl-rl

14:24:07 <ivan> ... i would expect that would be blessed to some degree by either rif or the owl working group

... i would expect that would be blessed to some degree by either rif or the owl working group

14:24:16 <ivan> ... david raynolds did that the last few weeks

... david raynolds did that the last few weeks

14:24:28 <ivan> ... he had problems with the datatypes

... he had problems with the datatypes

14:24:54 <ivan> ... he made a rif file that can be loaded into a rif processor

... he made a rif file that can be loaded into a rif processor

14:25:09 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:25:20 <ivan> bijan: follow up on bernardo's point, those seem to be an obvious inefficiency

Bijan Parsia: follow up on bernardo's point, those seem to be an obvious inefficiency

14:25:45 <ivan> ... a naive reaonser will go into trouble

... a naive reaonser will go into trouble

14:26:01 <ivan> ... a backward chaining engine would not have a trouble as it stands

... a backward chaining engine would not have a trouble as it stands

14:26:14 <ivan> ... some forward chaining rules would not either

... some forward chaining rules would not either

14:26:34 <ivan> ... the implementors are at least as sophisticated as the ones who have done rdfs reasoners

... the implementors are at least as sophisticated as the ones who have done rdfs reasoners

14:26:53 <ivan> .... the target base is sophisticated enough to take the spec and adapt it for themselves

.... the target base is sophisticated enough to take the spec and adapt it for themselves

14:27:27 <ivan> michael: we had the same discussion this morning, it is always the same

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: we had the same discussion this morning, it is always the same

14:27:28 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:27:40 <ivan> ... we can get a lot of stuff with these kinds of rules

... we can get a lot of stuff with these kinds of rules

14:27:54 <ivan> ... it is not necessary to do that and it is not hard to implement

... it is not necessary to do that and it is not hard to implement

14:28:01 <pfps> Resolution of ISSUE 149 is by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples

Peter Patel-Schneider: Resolution of ISSUE-149 is by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples

14:28:06 <sandro> michael: The problem is always the same -- there are naive ways to apply the rules that will cause big problems, but there are also smarter ways to do it.

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: The problem is always the same -- there are naive ways to apply the rules that will cause big problems, but there are also smarter ways to do it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:28:37 <bernardo> q+

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: q+

14:28:53 <pfps> q-

Peter Patel-Schneider: q-

14:29:05 <IanH> ivan: 2 practical experiences

Ivan Herman: 2 practical experiences [ Scribe Assist by Ian Horrocks ]

14:29:32 <IanH> ... I have a naive implementation, and yes it will have issues Alan describes

Ian Horrocks: ... I have a naive implementation, and yes it will have issues Alan describes

14:29:50 <IanH> ... but if I had a million triples I wouldn't try to use it

Ian Horrocks: ... but if I had a million triples I wouldn't try to use it

14:30:10 <alanr> trillion triple

Alan Ruttenberg: trillion triple

14:30:23 <IanH> ... I talked to Ontotext and Franz inc and they told me that they built into their query language

Ian Horrocks: ... I talked to Ontotext and Franz inc and they told me that they built into their query language

14:30:45 <IanH> ... a whole separate part to handle literals

Ian Horrocks: ... a whole separate part to handle literals

14:31:00 <alanr> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3Abillion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Alan Ruttenberg: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define%3Abillion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

14:31:00 <IanH> ... and they don't care too much about adding triples

Ian Horrocks: ... and they don't care too much about adding triples

14:31:13 <IanH> ... So, I'm not convinced we have a problem.

Ian Horrocks: ... So, I'm not convinced we have a problem.

14:31:18 <alanr> There is disparity in def of billion

Alan Ruttenberg: There is disparity in def of billion

14:31:53 <ivan> alanr: i hear what people saying, i think there is still an issue of presentation

Alan Ruttenberg: i hear what people saying, i think there is still an issue of presentation

14:32:03 <ivan> ... it needs a little bit more time to deal with that

... it needs a little bit more time to deal with that

14:32:03 <bernardo> -q

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: -q

14:33:23 <ivan> alanr: i was not here for the issue of 149, what it needs is a bit more than that

Alan Ruttenberg: i was not here for the issue of 149, what it needs is a bit more than that

14:33:52 <ivan> bijan: first this does not sound like a last call blocker

Bijan Parsia: first this does not sound like a last call blocker

14:33:59 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:34:09 <ivan> ... before we do that such a text if it is expanded may be overtaken by events

... before we do that such a text if it is expanded may be overtaken by events

14:34:20 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:34:35 <ivan> ... i do not see why this should be in the document

... i do not see why this should be in the document

14:34:57 <ivan> alanr: if you recall one of the issues was that it cannot be read by the target audience

Alan Ruttenberg: if you recall one of the issues was that it cannot be read by the target audience

14:35:21 <ivan> ... my comfort zone was to help that audience, something that is helpful

... my comfort zone was to help that audience, something that is helpful

14:35:35 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:36:37 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

14:36:48 <Zhe> zakim, unmute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, unmute me

14:36:48 <Zakim> Zhe was not muted, Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe was not muted, Zhe

14:36:51 <ivan> bernardo: is alan o.k. if we add some text saying that if this is implemented in naive way that can be inefficient, but giving some pointers

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: is alan o.k. if we add some text saying that if this is implemented in naive way that can be inefficient, but giving some pointers

14:36:59 <ivan> alanr: fine

Alan Ruttenberg: fine

14:37:35 <ivan> Zhe: i think alan and I and a few other people exchanged a bunch emails, i do not think there is a big problem with the document, and i am o.k. this to go to last call

Zhe Wu: i think alan and I and a few other people exchanged a bunch emails, i do not think there is a big problem with the document, and i am o.k. this to go to last call

14:37:59 <ivan> ... previously i was thinking to make the the rule set fool proof so that anybody could do an efficient implementation

... previously i was thinking to make the the rule set fool proof so that anybody could do an efficient implementation

14:38:09 <ivan> ... but i realized gradually that this is not possible

... but i realized gradually that this is not possible

14:38:20 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:38:25 <ivan> ... so i realize that some more should be done, and those additional are not too bad

... so i realize that some more should be done, and those additional are not too bad

14:38:29 <bijan> +1 Zhe

Bijan Parsia: +1 Zhe

14:38:49 <schneid> not extremely more smart, a /bit/ more smart already will bring you a lot further, I guess

Michael Schneider: not extremely more smart, a /bit/ more smart already will bring you a lot further, I guess

14:38:51 <IanH> ack Zhe

Ian Horrocks: ack Zhe

14:39:01 <ivan> PROPOSED: Profile document goes to Last Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)

PROPOSED: Profile document goes to Last Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)

14:39:08 <bijan> It really depends on a lot of factors, e.g., data set, rule engine etc.

Bijan Parsia: It really depends on a lot of factors, e.g., data set, rule engine etc.

14:39:08 <Achille> +1 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM)

14:39:13 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

14:39:13 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)

Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)

14:39:15 <pfps> +1 (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

14:39:18 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA)

14:39:20 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

14:39:21 <baojie> +1 (RPI)

Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)

14:39:21 <bernardo> +1 (Oxford)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (Oxford)

14:39:22 <ivan> ivan: +1 (W3C)

Ivan Herman: +1 (W3C)

14:39:24 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq)

14:39:33 <alanr> 0 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: 0 (Science Commons)

14:39:34 <msmith> +1 (C&P)

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)

14:39:44 <wallace> +1 (NIST)

Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)

14:39:58 <ivan> RESOLUTION: Profile document goes to Last Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)

RESOLVED: Profile document goes to Last Call at the same time as the others (Dec 1)

14:40:15 <ivan> IanH: conformance and test cases then?

Ian Horrocks: conformance and test cases then?

14:41:08 <ivan> IanH: what is our feeling?

Ian Horrocks: what is our feeling?

14:41:25 <ivan> MarkusK_: we had some discussions and the problems are with the test cases

Markus Krötzsch: we had some discussions and the problems are with the test cases

14:41:45 <ivan> ... the general idea is that this should be a description of the test case framework and schemas rathre than listing the cases

... the general idea is that this should be a description of the test case framework and schemas rathre than listing the cases

14:42:03 <ivan> ... it is also desirable to align with the rif group who is working on their schemas

... it is also desirable to align with the rif group who is working on their schemas

14:42:05 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:42:26 <ivan> ... the proposal is that I would contact them to see what the final shape of the document should be, and finish that before the end of the year

... the proposal is that I would contact them to see what the final shape of the document should be, and finish that before the end of the year

14:42:38 <ivan> IanH: would that be a dependency on rif

Ian Horrocks: would that be a dependency on rif

14:42:45 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:42:55 <ivan> MarkusK_: no it is just informal, they already use much of the scema part that we also use this

Markus Krötzsch: no it is just informal, they already use much of the scema part that we also use this

14:43:04 <ivan> ... it should be easy to align that further

... it should be easy to align that further

14:43:27 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:43:29 <ivan> sandro: just having more faith that the stuff is correct is good

Sandro Hawke: just having more faith that the stuff is correct is good

14:43:40 <ivan> bijan: are we ready to sollicit test cases?

Bijan Parsia: are we ready to sollicit test cases?

14:43:55 <ivan> ... i was hoping to ask the owled people for new tests

... i was hoping to ask the owled people for new tests

14:43:59 <ivan> MarkusK_: yes

Markus Krötzsch: yes

14:44:02 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:44:10 <ivan> bijan: if that ready than I think it is ready to go last call

Bijan Parsia: if that ready than I think it is ready to go last call

14:44:44 <ivan> IanH: can you formulate a proposal we can vote on?

Ian Horrocks: can you formulate a proposal we can vote on?

14:45:01 <ivan> MarkusK_: on submitting people should not send email, I will set up a form based site

Markus Krötzsch: on submitting people should not send email, I will set up a form based site

14:45:14 <sandro> sandro: not that the wiki format is separate from what we're publishing, so submitting is a different question.

Sandro Hawke: not that the wiki format is separate from what we're publishing, so submitting is a different question. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:45:19 <ivan> ... we can have a site where people can submit things and taht it

... we can have a site where people can submit things and taht it

14:45:38 <ivan> MarkusK_: the changes we have to do and editorial things, there are no fundamental changes

Markus Krötzsch: the changes we have to do and editorial things, there are no fundamental changes

14:46:13 <ivan> sandro: we will change things (uris) that might break software

Sandro Hawke: we will change things (uris) that might break software

14:46:15 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:46:15 <msmith> We expect to change these things before end of Nov

Michael Smith: We expect to change these things before end of Nov

14:46:19 <ivan> ... that is not really good for last call

... that is not really good for last call

14:46:23 <msmith> q+

Michael Smith: q+

14:47:08 <ivan> MarkusK_: it might still change before last call, but we can sollicit test cases

Markus Krötzsch: it might still change before last call, but we can sollicit test cases

14:47:17 <IanH> q?

Ian Horrocks: q?

14:47:27 <IanH> ack msmith

Ian Horrocks: ack msmith

14:48:08 <ivan> msmith: agree with MarkusK_, i have already written some software to get tests from the site

Michael Smith: agree with MarkusK_, i have already written some software to get tests from the site

14:48:17 <sandro> Sandro: So after Last Call of Test Cases, I wouldn't want the test-case-format spec to change, although maybe that's too strict.

Sandro Hawke: So after Last Call of Test Cases, I wouldn't want the test-case-format spec to change, although maybe that's too strict. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:48:41 <ivan> PROPOSAL: move the Conf. and test cases to Last Call with the other documents (Dec 1)

PROPOSED: move the Conf. and test cases to Last Call with the other documents (Dec 1)

14:48:45 <msmith> the software that I've written pulls test case ontologies and does profile identification / alidation

Michael Smith: the software that I've written pulls test case ontologies and does profile identification / validation

14:48:57 <msmith> s/alidation/validation/
14:50:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).

PROPOSED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).

14:51:13 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)

Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI)

14:51:14 <bernardo> +1 (oxford)

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1 (oxford)

14:51:14 <ivan> ivan: +1 (W3C)

Ivan Herman: +1 (W3C)

14:51:18 <baojie> +1 (RPI)

Jie Bao: +1 (RPI)

14:51:19 <msmith> +1 (C&P)

Michael Smith: +1 (C&P)

14:51:19 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)

Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE)

14:51:20 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons)

14:51:21 <Rinke> +1 (UvA)

Rinke Hoekstra: +1 (UvA)

14:51:22 <Achille> 0 (IBM)

Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM)

14:51:24 <pfps> +1  (ALU)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU)

14:51:27 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)

Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq)

14:51:32 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)

Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester)

14:51:37 <wallace> +1 (NIST)

Evan Wallace: +1 (NIST)

14:51:55 <ivan> RESOLUTION:  If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).

RESOLVED: If no new issues are found with it, and with changes already discussed, and some more hammering out of the test case format, we'll publish "Conformance and Test Case" with the other documents (target Dec 1).

14:52:24 <MarkusK_> ACTION: mkrtzsch to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases"

ACTION: mkrtzsch to align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of "Conformance and Test Cases"

14:52:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of \"Conformance and Test Cases\" [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-10-31].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-239 - Align OWL test case suite with RIF efforts, and to make required editorial changes to test part of \"Conformance and Test Cases\" [on Markus Krötzsch - due 2008-10-31].

14:52:38 <ivan> Topic: Other documents

7. Other documents

14:53:45 <baojie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0160.html

Jie Bao: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0160.html

14:53:56 <baojie> Jim's email on UCR

Jie Bao: Jim's email on UCR

14:52:38 <ivan> subtopic: Requirements Document

7.1. Requirements Document

14:54:12 <ivan> alanr: requirements document

Alan Ruttenberg: requirements document

14:54:29 <ivan> ... what issues remain, what the roadmap is

... what issues remain, what the roadmap is

14:54:38 <ivan> ... reviews and workplans are on the table

... reviews and workplans are on the table

14:54:56 <ivan> ... maybe people who have opinions to speak up now

... maybe people who have opinions to speak up now

14:55:22 <ivan> ... we are heading for first public working draft and then issue is rec track

... we are heading for first public working draft and then issue is rec track

14:56:03 <bijan> Rinke's email: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E0A843E0-0F42-4470-9D22-499AC129DA8B@uva.nl>

Bijan Parsia: Rinke's email: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E0A843E0-0F42-4470-9D22-499AC129DA8B@uva.nl>

14:56:21 <ivan> Rinke: i think the use cases should be in there, but section 5 is the core of the document

Rinke Hoekstra: i think the use cases should be in there, but section 5 is the core of the document

14:56:38 <ivan> ... the idea would be to move the use cases in the appendix and refer to that from the core

... the idea would be to move the use cases in the appendix and refer to that from the core

14:56:50 <ivan> ... also remove the domain dependence of the use cases

... also remove the domain dependence of the use cases

14:57:02 <ivan> .... they should not be so clearly bound to a domain

.... they should not be so clearly bound to a domain

14:57:31 <ivan> Christine: i just agree with bijan's and Rinke's proposal

Christine Golbreich: i just agree with bijan's and Rinke's proposal

14:57:40 <ivan> ... and to put the use cases in the appendix

... and to put the use cases in the appendix

14:58:07 <ivan> ... I only implemented the decision of the user facing document group who asked to make those three documents

... I only implemented the decision of the user facing document group who asked to make those three documents

14:58:24 <ivan> ... I am o.k. to keep the features, this is the core of the document

... I am o.k. to keep the features, this is the core of the document

14:58:43 <ivan> ... it is important to have a human facing part that describe all the new features

... it is important to have a human facing part that describe all the new features

14:58:43 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

14:59:00 <ivan> ... all these are editorial changes only

... all these are editorial changes only

14:59:21 <ivan> ... I can also remove the domain aspects,

... I can also remove the domain aspects,

14:59:38 <ivan> ... for each feature there is a 'tag' to assign them to domains

... for each feature there is a 'tag' to assign them to domains

15:00:28 <ivan> alanr: rinke was also suggesting if you read 3.10, there is lot of text on clinical trials, hcls, etc

Alan Ruttenberg: rinke was also suggesting if you read 3.10, there is lot of text on clinical trials, hcls, etc

15:00:54 <ivan> ... i thought that the proposal was to remove thos specific case and, in some cases, add text from other areas

... i thought that the proposal was to remove thos specific case and, in some cases, add text from other areas

15:01:02 <ivan> ... christine, what do you think about that?

... christine, what do you think about that?

15:01:39 <ivan> Christine: I would cut the use cases section, put it somewhere, if somebody want to work on the formulation, that is fine

Christine Golbreich: I would cut the use cases section, put it somewhere, if somebody want to work on the formulation, that is fine

15:02:02 <ivan> ... but i would like to have only editorial chagnes

... but i would like to have only editorial chagnes

15:02:22 <ivan> ... I would prefer to keep the text like it, only editorial information

... I would prefer to keep the text like it, only editorial information

15:02:35 <ivan> ... I am o.k. to remove all that stuff

... I am o.k. to remove all that stuff

15:03:00 <ivan> ... if you go to the feature section, there are three buttons to stress the example, the implementation or the theoretical perspectives,

... if you go to the feature section, there are three buttons to stress the example, the implementation or the theoretical perspectives,

15:04:34 <ivan> wallace: I am confused because I read rinke's mail differently

Evan Wallace: I am confused because I read rinke's mail differently

15:04:48 <ivan> ... now I am confused

... now I am confused

15:05:01 <ivan> Rinke: my preference would be to have more general issues with those use cases

Rinke Hoekstra: my preference would be to have more general issues with those use cases

15:05:10 <ivan> ... but I am o.k. with a more superficial changes

... but I am o.k. with a more superficial changes

15:05:32 <ivan> wallace: I think what rinke suggests is a good way to go

Evan Wallace: I think what rinke suggests is a good way to go

15:05:46 <ivan> ... I understood the idea was the requirements to the features' sectioon

... I understood the idea was the requirements to the features' sectioon

15:06:09 <ivan> ... this looks like a nice way to go

... this looks like a nice way to go

15:06:23 <ivan> bijan: I like section 5, I am not sure to include the grammar

Bijan Parsia: I like section 5, I am not sure to include the grammar

15:07:05 <ivan> ... my idea roll sections 4 into 5, dump the rest

... my idea roll sections 4 into 5, dump the rest

15:07:32 <ivan> ... looking at the use cases i do not think that making them more abstract would be more helpful

... looking at the use cases i do not think that making them more abstract would be more helpful

15:07:58 <ivan> ... I have problem with the non changable status of the document

... I have problem with the non changable status of the document

15:08:10 <ivan> ... if I could change them later that would be o.k.

... if I could change them later that would be o.k.

15:08:25 <ivan> ... if we made it a placeholder for later

... if we made it a placeholder for later

15:08:31 <ivan> ... eg in the esw

... eg in the esw

15:08:35 <ivan> ... it could be viable

... it could be viable

15:09:11 <ivan> ... eg we discussed about updating the test cases beyond the group

... eg we discussed about updating the test cases beyond the group

15:09:21 <ivan> ... something similar could work

... something similar could work

15:09:32 <ivan> ... I like section 5 a lot

... I like section 5 a lot

15:10:08 <ivan> Achille: I like the features and requirements, initially I thought the use cases being too long, putting them in the appendix

Achille Fokoue: I like the features and requirements, initially I thought the use cases being too long, putting them in the appendix

15:10:22 <ivan> ... I like the ide of bijan to put it to a place where we can update it

... I like the ide of bijan to put it to a place where we can update it

15:10:39 <ivan> michael: making use cases more abstract would help you work

Scribe problem: the name 'michael' is ambiguous. It could be any of: Michael Smith Michael Schneider . Either change the name used or insert a 'PRESENT: ...' line to restrict the active names.

Unknown michael: making use cases more abstract would help you work

15:10:55 <ivan> ... if at all, come up with new use cases in other domains

... if at all, come up with new use cases in other domains

15:11:06 <Zhe> alanr, can I say something?

Zhe Wu: alanr, can I say something?

15:11:08 <ivan> bernardo: agree with bijan

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: agree with bijan

15:11:41 <ivan> ... I am not such a need to update in a very abstract way

... I am not such a need to update in a very abstract way

15:11:48 <ivan> ... it is really difficult to make this explicit

... it is really difficult to make this explicit

15:12:06 <ivan> ... if we were to move that into a place where we could maintain them

... if we were to move that into a place where we could maintain them

15:12:11 <ivan> ... section 5 is the core of the document

... section 5 is the core of the document

15:13:16 <ivan> Zhe: I am in love with section 5, but it does not belong to a requirement document

Zhe Wu: I am in love with section 5, but it does not belong to a requirement document

15:13:39 <ivan> .... a requirement document should focus on use cases and the job is done

.... a requirement document should focus on use cases and the job is done

15:14:17 <ivan> IanH_: I am happy with the stage of the document

Ian Horrocks: I am happy with the stage of the document

15:14:39 <alanr> Ivan says:

Alan Ruttenberg: Ivan says:

15:14:52 <alanr> closest to opinion of Zhe

Alan Ruttenberg: closest to opinion of Zhe

15:15:13 <alanr> Use case and req are more for documenting the history

Alan Ruttenberg: Use case and req are more for documenting the history

15:15:19 <alanr> what stays long term is section 5

Alan Ruttenberg: what stays long term is section 5

15:15:30 <alanr> Take section 5 as other document

Alan Ruttenberg: Take section 5 as other document

15:15:39 <alanr>  suggestion: Take section 5 and merge with QRG

Alan Ruttenberg: suggestion: Take section 5 and merge with QRG

15:15:56 <baojie> q+

Jie Bao: q+

15:16:02 <alanr> That way there is one place to go for all parts of the language - overseeable good document to give people outside

Alan Ruttenberg: That way there is one place to go for all parts of the language - overseeable good document to give people outside

15:16:50 <alanr> q+ christine

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ christine

15:16:56 <ivan> bijan: to speak to the concern of the traditional requirement document, this is exactly the requirement we had

Bijan Parsia: to speak to the concern of the traditional requirement document, this is exactly the requirement we had

15:16:56 <ivan> ... it was enormously useful for the language

... it was enormously useful for the language

15:17:15 <ivan> ... this is not like the traditional U&R documents

... this is not like the traditional U&R documents

15:17:55 <ivan> (scribe was a bit lost)

(scribe was a bit lost)

15:18:17 <alanr> ack Zhe

Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe

15:18:22 <alanr> ack baojie

Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie

15:18:37 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

15:18:40 <ivan> baojie: I love section 5, just rename the document to reflect design considerations

Jie Bao: I love section 5, just rename the document to reflect design considerations

15:18:44 <sandro> zhe: let's add "design rationale" as part of the title.

Zhe Wu: let's add "design rationale" as part of the title. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:18:59 <ivan> ... about ivan's document of merging it with the reference guide, i am not sure about that

... about ivan's document of merging it with the reference guide, i am not sure about that

15:19:02 <bijan> +1 to keeping separate from the requirements/rationales

Bijan Parsia: +1 to keeping separate from the requirements/rationales

15:19:21 <alanr> ack christine

Alan Ruttenberg: ack christine

15:19:23 <ivan> ... the quick reference guide has other goals

... the quick reference guide has other goals

15:19:30 <Zhe> section 5 is useful. however, it gets into design domain. maybe we can rename the document to "Requiremetns and Design Rationale"

Zhe Wu: section 5 is useful. however, it gets into design domain. maybe we can rename the document to "Requiremetns and Design Rationale"

15:19:39 <ivan> Christine: i think the name of the document are details to be agreed later

Christine Golbreich: i think the name of the document are details to be agreed later

15:20:02 <ivan> ... we have to agreed on the principle on this content to be working draft document and I just want to answer

... we have to agreed on the principle on this content to be working draft document and I just want to answer

15:20:27 <ivan> ... I agree it would be highly useful to have this section with the quick refernece guide

... I agree it would be highly useful to have this section with the quick refernece guide

15:20:42 <ivan> ... it would help to access the whole language and to caption of the new features

... it would help to access the whole language and to caption of the new features

15:21:01 <ivan> ... having the sue cases somewhere it would be useful, with links from the documents

... having the sue cases somewhere it would be useful, with links from the documents

15:21:23 <ivan> ... from the quick reference guide there will be links tot he spec, from the features to the use cases

... from the quick reference guide there will be links tot he spec, from the features to the use cases

15:21:25 <bijan> I'm confused...section 5 doesn't cover all of the language..so the quick reference guide can't really use it

Bijan Parsia: I'm confused...section 5 doesn't cover all of the language..so the quick reference guide can't really use it

15:21:44 <ivan> ... and I am not sure about the use cases to be updated

... and I am not sure about the use cases to be updated

15:21:48 <alanr> q+ Bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: q+ Bijan

15:21:59 <ivan> ... the used case give a requirement for the language, it has to be frozen at some point

... the used case give a requirement for the language, it has to be frozen at some point

15:22:12 <ivan> ... there is no reason to update the use cases

... there is no reason to update the use cases

15:22:27 <ivan> ... afaik a w3c has often a  requirement section, that is frozen

... afaik a w3c has often a requirement section, that is frozen

15:23:42 <ivan> alanr: section 2 should be out, some people like use cases, could be good to move them elsewhere and slightly neutralize them

Alan Ruttenberg: section 2 should be out, some people like use cases, could be good to move them elsewhere and slightly neutralize them

15:23:59 <ivan> .... I have some doubts whether they would be updated

.... I have some doubts whether they would be updated

15:24:03 <ivan> bijan: there is a misunderstanding

Bijan Parsia: there is a misunderstanding

15:24:16 <ivan> ... this is not a requirement document for the language design

... this is not a requirement document for the language design

15:24:23 <ivan> ... it is a post facto rationalization

... it is a post facto rationalization

15:24:55 <ivan> ... what is the most useful thing this design gives? what is the design of the language? what is the use of owl and owl2

... what is the most useful thing this design gives? what is the design of the language? what is the use of owl and owl2

15:25:12 <ivan> ... use cases can be expanded

... use cases can be expanded

15:25:33 <ivan> ... I do think that people come to see use cases to understand

... I do think that people come to see use cases to understand

15:26:07 <Zhe> q+

Zhe Wu: q+

15:26:08 <ivan> ... if we give this a static thing this would be messing them up

... if we give this a static thing this would be messing them up

15:26:22 <sandro> bijan: I see this document as a way to explain OWL2 to users -- and we'll get better at that as time goes along.    There's really no need for use cases.

Bijan Parsia: I see this document as a way to explain OWL2 to users -- and we'll get better at that as time goes along. There's really no need for use cases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:26:27 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

15:26:30 <alanr> ack alanr

Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr

15:26:33 <alanr> ack Bijan

Alan Ruttenberg: ack Bijan

15:26:41 <ivan> Zhe: bijan, do you object to rename the document

Zhe Wu: bijan, do you object to rename the document

15:26:44 <alanr> ack Zhe

Alan Ruttenberg: ack Zhe

15:26:48 <ivan> bijan: I do not care about the name

Bijan Parsia: I do not care about the name

15:27:07 <ivan> .... I am happy with anything, requirement and blablabla

.... I am happy with anything, requirement and blablabla

15:27:12 <sandro> bijan: I like "Features and Rationale" as the title.

Bijan Parsia: I like "Features and Rationale" as the title. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:27:17 <sandro> Christine: so do I.

Christine Golbreich: so do I. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:27:30 <sandro> alan: broad consensus that Section 5 is great content.

Alan Ruttenberg: broad consensus that Section 5 is great content. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:27:37 <Zhe> it is indeed great content!

Zhe Wu: it is indeed great content!

15:27:37 <sandro> alan: no support for users and applications

Alan Ruttenberg: no support for users and applications [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:27:37 <ivan> alanr: concensus on section 5 great content

Alan Ruttenberg: concensus on section 5 great content

15:27:47 <sandro> alan: some support for use cases -- as appendix

Alan Ruttenberg: some support for use cases -- as appendix [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:28:13 <ivan> alanr: the most contentious one is the question of use cases and where they go

Alan Ruttenberg: the most contentious one is the question of use cases and where they go

15:29:43 <ivan> alanr: a straw poll on on the fate of use cases (section 3): (1) get rid of them altogether, (2) put them in an appendix (3) put the use cases in some place where they may be updated

Alan Ruttenberg: a straw poll on on the fate of use cases (section 3): (1) get rid of them altogether, (2) put them in an appendix (3) put the use cases in some place where they may be updated

15:30:02 <ivan> (4) status quo

(4) status quo

15:30:08 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  For section 3 (use cases) --    1== get rid of it     2==put them in an appendix      3== put them some place where they can be updated.     4==leave it as is

STRAWPOLL: For section 3 (use cases) -- 1== get rid of it 2==put them in an appendix 3== put them some place where they can be updated. 4==leave it as is

15:30:21 <Rinke> 3

Rinke Hoekstra: 3

15:30:24 <bernardo> 3

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 3

15:30:30 <bijan> 3

Bijan Parsia: 3

15:30:32 <baojie> 2

Jie Bao: 2

15:30:35 <Zhe> 4 and 2

Zhe Wu: 4 and 2

15:30:41 <schneid> 0

Michael Schneider: 0

15:30:49 <msmith> 0 (abstain)

Michael Smith: 0 (abstain)

15:30:51 <MarkusK_> 0

Markus Krötzsch: 0

15:30:52 <Christine> 2

Christine Golbreich: 2

15:30:55 <sandro> 2, 4

Sandro Hawke: 2, 4

15:31:03 <wallace> 3

Evan Wallace: 3

15:31:05 <pfps> four

Peter Patel-Schneider: four

15:31:08 <ivan> ivan: 2

Ivan Herman: 2

15:31:11 <alanr> 2

Alan Ruttenberg: 2

15:31:24 <IanH_> 4, 3

Ian Horrocks: 4, 3

15:31:38 <sandro> quatre?

Sandro Hawke: quatre?

15:31:50 <ivan> Christine: in the description of each feature ther eis a list of use cases, it is supposed to have links to link use cases

Christine Golbreich: in the description of each feature ther eis a list of use cases, it is supposed to have links to link use cases

15:33:34 <ivan> four 3-s, five 2-s, four 4-s,

four 3-s, five 2-s, four 4-s,

15:33:45 <sandro> for 2:  baojie Christine sandro ivan alanr

Sandro Hawke: for 2: baojie Christine sandro ivan alanr

15:33:45 <sandro> for 3:  Rinke bernardo bijan wallace

Sandro Hawke: for 3: Rinke bernardo bijan wallace

15:33:45 <sandro> for 4:  Zhe pfps IanH

Sandro Hawke: for 4: Zhe pfps IanH

15:33:53 <ivan> winer is probably 2,

winer is probably 2,

15:34:01 <Zhe> I can switch to 2, and 4 if that makes things better

Zhe Wu: I can switch to 2, and 4 if that makes things better

15:34:43 <ivan> alanr: what would people say if 3 is not accepted

Alan Ruttenberg: what would people say if 3 is not accepted

15:34:47 <ivan> bijan: my backup is 1

Bijan Parsia: my backup is 1

15:35:02 <ivan> alanr: majority would probably go to 2

Alan Ruttenberg: majority would probably go to 2

15:35:32 <ivan> sandro: we can have an appendix which says that 'there is a wiki for this, that can be udpated...'

Sandro Hawke: we can have an appendix which says that 'there is a wiki for this, that can be udpated...'

15:35:47 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft#Use_Case_.235_-_OBO_ontologies_for_biomedical_data_integration_.5BHCLS.5D

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft#Use_Case_.235_-_OBO_ontologies_for_biomedical_data_integration_.5BHCLS.5D

15:36:02 <ivan> bijan: for people who chose 2 what do you get from the use case?

Bijan Parsia: for people who chose 2 what do you get from the use case?

15:36:28 <ivan> Christine: for each use case there is a full paper online, people can go and find the paper on line

Christine Golbreich: for each use case there is a full paper online, people can go and find the paper on line

15:36:29 <ivan> ... these are only short abstracts

... these are only short abstracts

15:36:44 <ivan> ... this was the criteria to select one or not

... this was the criteria to select one or not

15:37:04 <ivan> Rinke: the formal reasons for doing this is to back up the requirements

Rinke Hoekstra: the formal reasons for doing this is to back up the requirements

15:37:22 <ivan> ... having no use cases is not really good

... having no use cases is not really good

15:38:03 <ivan> alanr: what I like about seeing these, that there are people who have really used this

Alan Ruttenberg: what I like about seeing these, that there are people who have really used this

15:38:27 <ivan> ... it is better at the appendix rather than not have this

... it is better at the appendix rather than not have this

15:38:39 <ivan> bijan: I did not realize that those links are there

Bijan Parsia: I did not realize that those links are there

15:38:53 <ivan> ... some of the use cases are not really use cases

... some of the use cases are not really use cases

15:38:53 <ivan> ... there is a lot fo them

... there is a lot fo them

15:39:11 <sandro> Bijan: Make it something more like an annotated bibiliography.

Bijan Parsia: Make it something more like an annotated bibiliography. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:39:20 <ivan> ... presenting all this as an annotated bibliogrpahy, it is providing an abstract description

... presenting all this as an annotated bibliogrpahy, it is providing an abstract description

15:39:33 <ivan> ... then having it static is fine becasue it is also historical

... then having it static is fine becasue it is also historical

15:40:27 <sandro> Bijan: it's okay to call it use cases.

Bijan Parsia: it's okay to call it use cases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:40:45 <ivan> Christine: send me the sentence to be put

Christine Golbreich: send me the sentence to be put

15:41:04 <sandro> "Use Cases: An Annotated Bibliography"

Sandro Hawke: "Use Cases: An Annotated Bibliography"

15:41:14 <ivan> bijan: I am happy taking an action to reformat one of the entry

Bijan Parsia: I am happy taking an action to reformat one of the entry

15:41:40 <sandro> ACTION: Bijan to show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does.

ACTION: Bijan to show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does.

15:41:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-31].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-240 - Show a format for the use cases that he likes, making clear what it is and does. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-10-31].

15:42:51 <ivan> alanr: for the next week's meeting, I would propose to cancel the meeting

Alan Ruttenberg: for the next week's meeting, I would propose to cancel the meeting

15:42:56 <sandro> No Meeting Next Week.

Sandro Hawke: No Meeting Next Week.

15:43:21 <ivan> alanr: I think we are fine with that document

Alan Ruttenberg: I think we are fine with that document

15:43:31 <ivan> Christine: I want to know the future of the document

Christine Golbreich: I want to know the future of the document

15:43:42 <ivan> alanr: there is a question whether it is a rec track or a note

Alan Ruttenberg: there is a question whether it is a rec track or a note

15:43:56 <ivan> ... we are moving the document ahead

... we are moving the document ahead

15:44:13 <ivan> ... I would propose to consider this as a rec track document

... I would propose to consider this as a rec track document

15:44:34 <ivan> ... it may avoid disagreements and criticisms

... it may avoid disagreements and criticisms

15:45:14 <ivan> bernardo: what is the w3c a recommendation

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: what is the w3c a recommendation

15:45:26 <ivan> ... what is w3c recommending

... what is w3c recommending

15:45:36 <ivan> sandro: what it means is that it has been widely reviewed by the community

Sandro Hawke: what it means is that it has been widely reviewed by the community

15:46:12 <ivan> bijan: if we decide this document become a rec, we make a case for all use case documents to be rec track

Bijan Parsia: if we decide this document become a rec, we make a case for all use case documents to be rec track

15:46:38 <ivan> bernardo: there is a difference, there is a useful information in this document

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: there is a difference, there is a useful information in this document

15:46:50 <ivan> alanr: plus the level of quality in them

Alan Ruttenberg: plus the level of quality in them

15:47:08 <sandro> Alan: I'm open to any document being a REC if the quality is good enough.

Alan Ruttenberg: I'm open to any document being a REC if the quality is good enough. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:47:29 <ivan> IanH_: I agree with bijan, every additional document you give rec track too,

Ian Horrocks: I agree with bijan, every additional document you give rec track too,

15:47:46 <ivan> bijan: I am in principle having all these rec track

Bijan Parsia: I am in principle having all these rec track

15:48:06 <ivan> pfps: I think that w3c has made a disservice to make non-normative documents rec track

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that w3c has made a disservice to make non-normative documents rec track

15:48:11 <baojie> q+

Jie Bao: q+

15:48:16 <sandro> PFPS: I think the bar for Rec Track should be "rec track".

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think the bar for Rec Track should be "rec track". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:48:26 <ivan> ... the precise part to be rec track is when you have normative status

... the precise part to be rec track is when you have normative status

15:48:31 <alanr> q?

Alan Ruttenberg: q?

15:49:10 <ivan> pfps: this one is below that one. There is a distinction between this one and the primer, this one has some impact on our spec

Peter Patel-Schneider: this one is below that one. There is a distinction between this one and the primer, this one has some impact on our spec

15:49:44 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html

15:49:51 <ivan> baojie: remind of Jim's remark, the charter says that the requirement might be part of the deliverables as rec

Jie Bao: remind of Jim's remark, the charter says that the requirement might be part of the deliverables as rec

15:50:01 <sandro> "Requirements:

Sandro Hawke: "Requirements:

15:50:01 <sandro>     A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

Sandro Hawke: A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated the design of OWL 1.1.

15:50:02 <sandro> "

Sandro Hawke: "

15:50:28 <ivan> alanr: I am not sure that mandates us, but there might have been an expectation on us

Alan Ruttenberg: I am not sure that mandates us, but there might have been an expectation on us

15:51:28 <ivan> sandro: webont pushed the w3c process and we are pushing more. We have a technical spec and a manual, and for whatever reasons of process and credits we split it into lots of documents

Sandro Hawke: webont pushed the w3c process and we are pushing more. We have a technical spec and a manual, and for whatever reasons of process and credits we split it into lots of documents

15:51:50 <ivan> ... I would not split hairs on that, and say this is all documenations

... I would not split hairs on that, and say this is all documenations

15:52:16 <ivan> schneid: this would mean that only technical documents that can be rec track and user facing document cannot?

Michael Schneider: this would mean that only technical documents that can be rec track and user facing document cannot?

15:52:33 <ivan> alanr: peter pointed out that there is room for this document

Alan Ruttenberg: peter pointed out that there is room for this document

15:53:25 <sandro> Sandro: I'd say imagine this is all one or two big documents, which are Recs.   the fact that we're splitting it up, ehhhh, not so important.

Sandro Hawke: I'd say imagine this is all one or two big documents, which are Recs. the fact that we're splitting it up, ehhhh, not so important. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:55:16 <baojie> Please note OWL 1 has user facing document as rec, e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

Jie Bao: Please note OWL 1 has user facing document as rec, e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

15:55:59 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: 1==accept this document as a rec and accept subsequent documents on a case by case basis 2==make it as note 3==decide as a package

STRAWPOLL: 1==accept this document as a rec and accept subsequent documents on a case by case basis 2==make it as note 3==decide as a package

15:56:09 <bijan> 3

Bijan Parsia: 3

15:56:12 <schneid> 3

Michael Schneider: 3

15:56:15 <alanr> 1

Alan Ruttenberg: 1

15:56:15 <pfps> 3

Peter Patel-Schneider: 3

15:56:19 <sandro> 1

Sandro Hawke: 1

15:56:20 <ivan> ivan: 0

Ivan Herman: 0

15:56:20 <Rinke> 1

Rinke Hoekstra: 1

15:56:22 <baojie> 1

Jie Bao: 1

15:56:27 <Zhe> 1

Zhe Wu: 1

15:56:27 <Christine> 1

Christine Golbreich: 1

15:56:29 <bernardo> 3

Bernardo Cuenca Grau: 3

15:56:35 <MarkusK_> 3

Markus Krötzsch: 3

15:56:36 <IanH_> 3

Ian Horrocks: 3

15:56:39 <msmith> 3

Michael Smith: 3

15:56:39 <wallace> 3

Evan Wallace: 3

15:57:18 <ivan> eight 3-s, six 1-s, no 2-s, and one 0

eight 3-s, six 1-s, no 2-s, and one 0

15:57:54 <ivan> schneid: we should have OWL as rec, and not this one and this one

Michael Schneider: we should have OWL as rec, and not this one and this one

15:58:07 <ivan> bijan: I dislike things that do not have normative value as a rec

Bijan Parsia: I dislike things that do not have normative value as a rec

15:58:27 <sandro> Bijan: I've always disliked the practice of things that don't have normative force being called a "Recommendation". I'd like us to be consistent.

Bijan Parsia: I've always disliked the practice of things that don't have normative force being called a "Recommendation". I'd like us to be consistent. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:58:29 <ivan> ... the more recs you have tends to make other things look stranger

... the more recs you have tends to make other things look stranger

15:58:50 <ivan> Christine: i definitely have problems deciding altogether

Christine Golbreich: i definitely have problems deciding altogether

15:58:52 <alanr> q+

Alan Ruttenberg: q+

15:58:57 <alanr> ack baojie

Alan Ruttenberg: ack baojie

15:58:58 <ivan> ... there is a level of quality to be a rec

... there is a level of quality to be a rec

15:59:07 <ivan> ... if we have to decide it for a package

... if we have to decide it for a package

15:59:24 <ivan> bijan: what I meant is at the same time!

Bijan Parsia: what I meant is at the same time!

15:59:46 <ivan> Christine: one of the other documents may take a long time to be ready and this time may take a week

Christine Golbreich: one of the other documents may take a long time to be ready and this time may take a week

16:00:05 <ivan> alanr: the status of the document does not reflect

Alan Ruttenberg: the status of the document does not reflect

16:00:16 <ivan> ... the final goal of the document

... the final goal of the document

16:00:35 <sandro> pfps: We want Uniformity.

Peter Patel-Schneider: We want Uniformity. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:00:41 <ivan> alanr: I do not think we have concensus

Alan Ruttenberg: I do not think we have concensus

16:00:59 <baojie> q+

Jie Bao: q+

16:01:03 <ivan> ... there is a significant portion of the people that would be leaning towards a rec

... there is a significant portion of the people that would be leaning towards a rec

16:03:10 <pfps> there was a larger portion that did not give a preference

Peter Patel-Schneider: there was a larger portion that did not give a preference

16:03:38 <ivan> meeting adjourned

meeting adjourned

16:03:48 <Zhe> have a nice trip back home!

Zhe Wu: have a nice trip back home!

16:04:09 <sandro> sandro: we need a fight to write home about.

Sandro Hawke: we need a fight to write home about. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:04:21 <Zakim> -Zhe

Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe

16:04:47 <baojie> so, we leave the rec status of all "other" document undecided?

Jie Bao: so, we leave the rec status of all "other" document undecided?

16:29:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Target date for FPWD publication of UCR is Dec 1, along with the other document.s

(No events recorded for 24 minutes)

PROPOSED: Target date for FPWD publication of UCR is Dec 1, along with the other document.s

16:29:44 <sandro> (this is informal, since the meeting is adjourned)

Sandro Hawke: (this is informal, since the meeting is adjourned)

16:30:01 <sandro> (but everyone is sounding encouraging.  there is no disagreement.)

Sandro Hawke: (but everyone is sounding encouraging. there is no disagreement.)

16:30:13 <sandro> (no one has even considered that we won't publish it.)

Sandro Hawke: (no one has even considered that we won't publish it.)

16:30:27 <MarkusK_> +1

Markus Krötzsch: +1

16:30:33 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

<sandro> Logging Done.

Sandro Hawke: Logging Done.



Formatted by CommonScribe