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: pfps, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau, ruttenberg, msmith, bmotik, Zhe, baojie, MarkusK, ekw, uli, bijan, mschneid, Achille, zimmer, christine
Scribe problem: the name 'ekw' does not match any of the 56 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Achille Fokoue Alan Ruttenberg Anne Cregan Antoine Zimmermann Bernardo Cuenca Grau Bijan Parsia Boris Motik Christine Golbreich Conrad Bock Cui Tao Deborah McGuinness Diego Calvanese Doug Lenat Elisa Kendall Enrico Franconi Evan Wallace Evren Sirin Fabian Neuhaus Fabien Gandon Giorgos Stamou Giorgos Stoilos Guoqian Jiang Harold Solbrig Héctor Pérez Urbina Ian Horrocks Ivan Herman Jeff Pan Jie Bao Joanne Luciano Jonathan Rees Jyotishman Pathak Kendall Clark Markus Krötzsch Markus Stocker Martin Dzbor Michael Sintek Michael Smith Michael Schneider Michel Dumontier Olivier Corby Pascal Hitzler Peter Haase Peter Patel-Schneider Ratnesh Sahay Rinke Hoekstra Rob Shearer Sandro Hawke Sebastian Rudolph Suzette Stoutenburg Thomas Schneider Tommie Meyer Uli Sattler Vassilis Tzouvaras Vipul Kashyap Vojtech Svatek Zhe Wu
16:55:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/20-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/20-owl-irc ←
16:55:52 <IanH> zakim, this will be owl
Ian Horrocks: zakim, this will be owl ←
16:55:52 <Zakim> ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, IanH; I see SW_OWL()1:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes ←
16:56:02 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.05.20/Agenda
Alan Ruttenberg: alanr has changed the topic to: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2009.05.20/Agenda ←
16:56:51 <Zakim> SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL()1:00PM has now started ←
16:56:58 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:58:15 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:58:18 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:58:19 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:58:47 <Zakim> +IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: +IanH ←
16:59:06 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
16:59:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH ←
16:59:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
16:59:10 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
Zakim IRC Bot: +Elisa_Kendall ←
16:59:30 <IanH> ScribeNick: elisa
(Scribe set to Elisa Kendall)
16:59:49 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Scribe_Conventions ←
17:00:20 <Zakim> +bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: +bcuencagrau ←
17:00:25 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:00:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau ←
17:00:26 <bcuencagrau> Zakim, mute me
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: Zakim, mute me ←
17:00:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
17:00:30 <Zakim> bcuencagrau should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bcuencagrau should now be muted ←
17:01:05 <Zakim> +Alan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alan ←
17:01:08 <IanH> Topic: Admin
17:01:13 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:01:13 <Zakim> sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, alanr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
17:01:21 <Zakim> +msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: +msmith ←
17:01:26 <alanr> zakim, Alan is alanr
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, Alan is alanr ←
17:01:26 <Zakim> +alanr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +alanr; got it ←
17:01:32 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:01:32 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:01:36 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:01:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith ←
17:01:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
17:02:01 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
17:02:02 <elisa> Ian: are there any agenda amendments?
Ian Horrocks: are there any agenda amendments? ←
17:02:05 <bmotik> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Boris Motik: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
17:02:05 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bmotik; got it ←
17:02:09 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, mute me ←
17:02:09 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should now be muted ←
17:02:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:02:30 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
17:02:39 <elisa> Ian: has anyone reviewed the previous minutes -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-13
Ian Horrocks: has anyone reviewed the previous minutes -- http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-13 ←
17:02:39 <Zakim> +baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: +baojie ←
17:02:43 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
17:02:43 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
17:02:44 <pfps> acceptable - could be fixed a bit, but no real reason to make them *perfect*
Peter Patel-Schneider: acceptable - could be fixed a bit, but no real reason to make them *perfect* ←
17:03:00 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:03:06 <baojie> zakim, mut me
17:03:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mut me', baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'mut me', baojie ←
17:03:10 <baojie> zakim, mute me
17:03:10 <Zakim> baojie should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: baojie should now be muted ←
17:03:15 <elisa> RESOLVED: Accept the previous minutes (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-13)
RESOLVED: Accept the previous minutes (http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-05-13) ←
17:03:29 <elisa> Subtopic: Pending Action Items Status
17:03:34 <Zakim> + +1.301.351.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.301.351.aaaa ←
17:03:38 <Zakim> +??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←
17:03:45 <uli> zakim, ??P25 us me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P25 us me ←
17:03:46 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P25 us me', uli
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '??P25 us me', uli ←
17:03:50 <uli> zakim, ??P25 is me
Uli Sattler: zakim, ??P25 is me ←
17:03:50 <Zakim> +uli; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +uli; got it ←
17:04:03 <elisa> Action 336 complete
ACTION-336 complete ←
17:04:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 336
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - 336 ←
17:04:37 <elisa> Topic: Documents and Reviewing
17:04:48 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
17:04:49 <uli> zakim, mute me
Uli Sattler: zakim, mute me ←
17:04:50 <Zakim> uli should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: uli should now be muted ←
17:04:53 <bijan> zakim, ??p0 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p0 is me ←
17:04:53 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
17:05:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:05:14 <ekw> zakim, 1.301.351.aaaa is me
Unknown ekw: zakim, 1.301.351.aaaa is me ←
17:05:14 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '1.301.351.aaaa' ←
17:05:20 <elisa> Ian: may want to reorder the discussion -- want to mark rdf:text as an at risk feature
Ian Horrocks: may want to reorder the discussion -- want to mark rdf:text as an at risk feature ←
17:05:30 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
17:05:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:05:35 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
17:05:35 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:05:37 <elisa> ... this potentially gives us the flexibility to do something with rdf:text in the future.
... this potentially gives us the flexibility to do something with rdf:text in the future. ←
17:05:39 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:05:39 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:05:40 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
17:05:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_,
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_, ←
17:05:43 <Zakim> ... +1.301.351.aaaa, uli (muted), bijan, schneid (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: ... +1.301.351.aaaa, uli (muted), bijan, schneid (muted) ←
17:05:59 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is ekw
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, aaaa is ekw ←
17:05:59 <Zakim> +ekw; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ekw; got it ←
17:06:07 <ekw> zakim, +1.301.351.aaaa is me
Unknown ekw: zakim, +1.301.351.aaaa is me ←
17:06:07 <Zakim> sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '+1.301.351.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ekw, I do not recognize a party named '+1.301.351.aaaa' ←
17:06:08 <uli> fine with me
Uli Sattler: fine with me ←
17:06:09 <elisa> Ian: suggest we have the discussion on rdf:text after some of the other more pressing discussions
Ian Horrocks: suggest we have the discussion on rdf:text after some of the other more pressing discussions ←
17:06:28 <elisa> Ian: OWL LC comments and responses --
Ian Horrocks: OWL LC comments and responses -- ←
17:06:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:06:45 <elisa> ... people have been sending comments and responding but there are still some outstanding
... people have been sending comments and responding but there are still some outstanding ←
17:07:09 <schneid> I also sent two
Michael Schneider: I also sent two ←
17:07:14 <elisa> Ian: Peter has sent some, Bijan too
Ian Horrocks: Peter has sent some, Bijan too ←
17:07:27 <elisa> Ian: next item: status of the documents
Ian Horrocks: next item: status of the documents ←
17:07:54 <elisa> Ian: In response to a comment from Jeremy, we agreed to change the vocabulary used for annotations
Ian Horrocks: In response to a comment from Jeremy, we agreed to change the vocabulary used for annotations ←
17:08:02 <elisa> Ian: need to make a formal resolution to do so
Ian Horrocks: need to make a formal resolution to do so ←
17:08:06 <IanH> PROPOSED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
PROPOSED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget. ←
17:08:20 <elisa> Ian: any discussion?
Ian Horrocks: any discussion? ←
17:08:36 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:08:39 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:08:40 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:08:42 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:08:43 <alanr> +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 ←
17:08:44 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:08:44 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:08:45 <ekw> +1
Unknown ekw: +1 ←
17:08:45 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:08:46 <elisa> +1
+1 ←
17:08:47 <baojie> +1
17:08:47 <Zhe> +1
17:08:48 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
17:08:49 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:09:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget.
RESOLVED: The RDF vocabulary for annotations should be changed from owl:subject, owl:predicate and owl:object to, respectively, owl:annotatedSource, owl:annotatedProperty and owl:annotatedTarget. ←
17:09:38 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
17:09:49 <Achille> zakim, ibm is me
Achille Fokoue: zakim, ibm is me ←
17:09:49 <Zakim> +Achille; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Achille; got it ←
17:10:08 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
17:10:20 <elisa> Ian: with respect to the primer, whether or not we should refer to OWL 1 docs, and in general whether or not we should do so
Ian Horrocks: with respect to the primer, whether or not we should refer to OWL 1 docs, and in general whether or not we should do so ←
17:10:22 <pfps> q+
17:10:52 <ekw> NF&R have to refer to
Unknown ekw: NF&R have to refer to ←
17:11:04 <elisa> PFPS: In general, it's not such a great idea. There are places where one wants to do this in the old technical documents, it's perfectly acceptable
Peter Patel-Schneider: In general, it's not such a great idea. There are places where one wants to do this in the old technical documents, it's perfectly acceptable ←
17:11:09 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
17:11:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_, ekw, uli
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie (muted), MarkusK_, ekw, uli ←
17:11:12 <Zakim> ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille ←
17:11:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see Achille, schneid, bijan, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Achille, schneid, bijan, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
17:11:15 <ekw> OWL 1
Unknown ekw: OWL 1 ←
17:11:41 <elisa> ... if we're thinking about it with respect to users, and contrasting OWL 2 with OWL 1, in general it's not a good idea
... if we're thinking about it with respect to users, and contrasting OWL 2 with OWL 1, in general it's not a good idea ←
17:11:43 <bijan> Be forward looking!
Bijan Parsia: Be forward looking! ←
17:11:44 <uli> +1 to pfps: we have 1 document 'backwards', NF&R, and all others in general 'forwards'
Uli Sattler: +1 to pfps: we have 1 document 'backwards', NF&R, and all others in general 'forwards' ←
17:11:50 <MarkusK_> +1 to pfps: referring back is not a good idea in general
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to pfps: referring back is not a good idea in general ←
17:11:51 <schneid> RDF-Based Semantics has a non-normative section on technical differences with old OWL 1 Full
Michael Schneider: RDF-Based Semantics has a non-normative section on technical differences with old OWL 1 Full ←
17:12:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:12:11 <elisa> Ian: what I wrote in the agenda is too general -- basically in the primer there was a bit of an impasse with one of the reviewers (Deb)
Ian Horrocks: what I wrote in the agenda is too general -- basically in the primer there was a bit of an impasse with one of the reviewers (Deb) ←
17:12:14 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
17:12:15 <elisa> and others
and others ←
17:12:19 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:12:27 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
17:12:39 <MarkusK_> oops, technical issue
Markus Krötzsch: oops, technical issue ←
17:12:42 <MarkusK_> q-
Markus Krötzsch: q- ←
17:12:48 <MarkusK_> no idea what happened
Markus Krötzsch: no idea what happened ←
17:12:56 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:12:58 <MarkusK_> I can type: we do not have a strong oppinion
Markus Krötzsch: I can type: we do not have a strong oppinion ←
17:12:59 <pfps> q+ me?
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ me? ←
17:13:04 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:13:05 <pfps> q- me?
Peter Patel-Schneider: q- me? ←
17:13:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:13:11 <MarkusK_> ... but I would prefer to not refer to the old documents
Markus Krötzsch: ... but I would prefer to not refer to the old documents ←
17:13:48 <elisa> Bijan: this is just an old difference of opinion - how much should our documents target users who were transitioning to OWL 2, who made heavy use of the documents
Bijan Parsia: this is just an old difference of opinion - how much should our documents target users who were transitioning to OWL 2, who made heavy use of the documents ←
17:13:49 <MarkusK_> ... in particular since the "backward looking" aspect was already an important reason for dropping an earlier appendix from the Primer.
Markus Krötzsch: ... in particular since the "backward looking" aspect was already an important reason for dropping an earlier appendix from the Primer. ←
17:14:07 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
17:14:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:14:45 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
17:14:51 <elisa> ... Deb wanted to include a number of pointers back to the older docs, and we should have a forward eye rather than backwards eye to these documents
... Deb wanted to include a number of pointers back to the older docs, and we should have a forward eye rather than backwards eye to these documents ←
17:15:29 <elisa> Markus: would also prefer not to have references to the older documents, aside from in NF&R - we already dropped lots of text because of similar issues
Markus Krötzsch: would also prefer not to have references to the older documents, aside from in NF&R - we already dropped lots of text because of similar issues ←
17:15:48 <alanr> could an example be presented?
Alan Ruttenberg: could an example be presented? ←
17:15:49 <elisa> Ian: any other support for backwards-looking links
Ian Horrocks: any other support for backwards-looking links ←
17:16:08 <alanr> how does she want to cite ?
Alan Ruttenberg: how does she want to cite ? ←
17:16:15 <pfps> The proposed change to Primer is the canonical example, I guess.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The proposed change to Primer is the canonical example, I guess. ←
17:16:19 <alanr> zakim, unmute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, unmute me ←
17:16:19 <Zakim> alanr should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should no longer be muted ←
17:16:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:16:39 <elisa> Alan: I can imagine a number of cases, some more objectionable than others ...
Alan Ruttenberg: I can imagine a number of cases, some more objectionable than others ... ←
17:16:47 <elisa> Ian: wasn't there a specific place ...
Ian Horrocks: wasn't there a specific place ... ←
17:17:04 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:17:06 <Zakim> + +03539149aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +03539149aabb ←
17:17:21 <zimmer> Zakim, +03539149aabb is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, +03539149aabb is me ←
17:17:21 <Zakim> +zimmer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zimmer; got it ←
17:17:25 <pfps> 5. On “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2 New Features
Peter Patel-Schneider: 5. On “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2 New Features ←
17:17:27 <pfps> and Rationale
Peter Patel-Schneider: and Rationale ←
17:17:28 <pfps> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#ref-owl-2-new-features>]
Peter Patel-Schneider: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#ref-owl-2-new-features>] ←
17:17:29 <elisa> Markus: will paste it in to the IRC -- this was a general reference to the old primer
Markus Krötzsch: will paste it in to the IRC -- this was a general reference to the old primer ←
17:17:30 <pfps> provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL 2.”
Peter Patel-Schneider: provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL 2.” ←
17:17:31 <pfps> 1. Change to “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2
Peter Patel-Schneider: 1. Change to “For readers already familiar with OWL 1, [OWL 2 ←
17:17:33 <pfps> New Features and Rationale
Peter Patel-Schneider: New Features and Rationale ←
17:17:35 <pfps> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#ref-owl-2-new-features>]
Peter Patel-Schneider: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#ref-owl-2-new-features>] ←
17:17:36 <pfps> provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL
Peter Patel-Schneider: provides a comprehensive overview of what has changed in OWL ←
17:17:38 <pfps> 2. This document also replaces the OWL Guide
Peter Patel-Schneider: 2. This document also replaces the OWL Guide ←
17:17:39 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:17:39 <pfps> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/> provided
Peter Patel-Schneider: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/> provided ←
17:17:39 <elisa> Alan: of the two cases that seems less harmful
Alan Ruttenberg: of the two cases that seems less harmful ←
17:17:41 <pfps> for OWL 1.
Peter Patel-Schneider: for OWL 1. ←
17:17:55 <alanr> seems harmless
Alan Ruttenberg: seems harmless ←
17:18:06 <bijan> I don't see how that helps anyone, so I don't see why we should include it
Bijan Parsia: I don't see how that helps anyone, so I don't see why we should include it ←
17:18:11 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:18:11 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:18:23 <alanr> helps deb ;-)
Alan Ruttenberg: helps deb ;-) ←
17:18:27 <alanr> editorial change
Alan Ruttenberg: editorial change ←
17:18:31 <elisa> Ian: this seems to be kind of a trivial issue -- we just need to help get this resolved, perhaps we should have a straw poll
Ian Horrocks: this seems to be kind of a trivial issue -- we just need to help get this resolved, perhaps we should have a straw poll ←
17:18:36 <alanr> agreed
Alan Ruttenberg: agreed ←
17:18:44 <elisa> Ian: this is editorial, so it could be dealt with after LC
Ian Horrocks: this is editorial, so it could be dealt with after LC ←
17:18:48 <MarkusK_> +1 to this being editorial
Markus Krötzsch: +1 to this being editorial ←
17:18:58 <bijan> Ok, it doesn't seem to help any of the target audience in anyway, so I don't see why we should include it
Bijan Parsia: Ok, it doesn't seem to help any of the target audience in anyway, so I don't see why we should include it ←
17:19:00 <elisa> ... quick straw poll to see how people feel about this
... quick straw poll to see how people feel about this ←
17:19:03 <bijan> +1 to it being editorial
Bijan Parsia: +1 to it being editorial ←
17:19:56 <IanH> STRAW POLL: Primer should not use references to OWL 1 guide to explain differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2
Ian Horrocks: STRAW POLL: Primer should not use references to OWL 1 guide to explain differences between OWL 1 and OWL 2 ←
17:20:15 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:20:21 <bcuencagrau> +1
17:20:24 <pfps> +1
17:20:25 <zimmer> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
17:20:27 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
17:20:28 <Zhe> 0
17:20:30 <Achille> 0
Achille Fokoue: 0 ←
17:20:30 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
17:20:31 <elisa> 0
0 ←
17:20:31 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
17:20:31 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
17:20:31 <uli> +1
Uli Sattler: +1 ←
17:20:34 <ekw> 0
Unknown ekw: 0 ←
17:20:34 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:20:35 <baojie> 0 (need to consult Deb)
Jie Bao: 0 (need to consult Deb) ←
17:20:40 <schneid> -0.2
Michael Schneider: -0.2 ←
17:20:53 <baojie> Zakim, unmute me
17:20:53 <Zakim> baojie should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: baojie should no longer be muted ←
17:21:04 <baojie> +q
17:21:10 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
17:21:15 <elisa> Ian: most people seem to think that we shouldn't be backwards looking
Ian Horrocks: most people seem to think that we shouldn't be backwards looking ←
17:21:21 <bijan> Technically, most people either are indifferent or hostile
Bijan Parsia: Technically, most people either are indifferent or hostile ←
17:21:36 <elisa> Jie: for the record, in general Deb will want a reference to the OWL 1 Guide
Jie Bao: for the record, in general Deb will want a reference to the OWL 1 Guide ←
17:21:50 <elisa> Ian: this is just general guidance - we can come back to this after last call
Ian Horrocks: this is just general guidance - we can come back to this after last call ←
17:22:10 <elisa> Topic: Advancing documents to Last Call and Candidate Recommendation
17:22:50 <elisa> Ian: you all have seen the discussion on exit criteria ... the suggestion is that we can vote on progressing the docs, and this only affects the CR docs
Ian Horrocks: you all have seen the discussion on exit criteria ... the suggestion is that we can vote on progressing the docs, and this only affects the CR docs ←
17:23:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:16 <elisa> ... we can vote on the docs being ready pending a resolution on the exit criteria, which we could vote on next week
... we can vote on the docs being ready pending a resolution on the exit criteria, which we could vote on next week ←
17:23:18 <pfps> go for it!
Peter Patel-Schneider: go for it! ←
17:23:20 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:23:28 <uli> i am happy
Uli Sattler: i am happy ←
17:23:45 <pfps> q+
17:23:49 <elisa> Ian: any discussion on proposals
Ian Horrocks: any discussion on proposals ←
17:23:50 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:24:23 <elisa> PFPS: just a general comment, it would be nice to have very few changes to the documents at this stage
Peter Patel-Schneider: just a general comment, it would be nice to have very few changes to the documents at this stage ←
17:24:41 <elisa> Ian: hopefully there would be very few other than what we have to do for publication
Ian Horrocks: hopefully there would be very few other than what we have to do for publication ←
17:24:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:25:10 <sandro> Ian: We don't expect any changes to the documents after this decision (if approved) other than necessary to publish them (eg fixing links)
Ian Horrocks: We don't expect any changes to the documents after this decision (if approved) other than necessary to publish them (eg fixing links) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:25:14 <IanH> PROPOSED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria
PROPOSED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria ←
17:25:16 <ekw> i am here
Unknown ekw: i am here ←
17:25:31 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
17:25:32 <pfps> +7 ALU (seven votes for seven documents)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +7 ALU (seven votes for seven documents) ←
17:25:37 <sandro> +1 W3C
Sandro Hawke: +1 W3C ←
17:25:39 <baojie> 0 (RPI)
17:25:42 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
17:25:43 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester) ←
17:25:43 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
17:25:44 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 (DERI) ←
17:25:46 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1 (NIST) ←
17:25:47 <msmith> +1 C&P
Michael Smith: +1 C&P ←
17:25:47 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:25:50 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
17:25:51 <bcuencagrau> +1(Oxford)
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: +1(Oxford) ←
17:25:57 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
+1 (Sandpiper Software) ←
17:26:26 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine) ←
17:26:35 <pfps> q+
17:26:37 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke) ←
17:26:42 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:27:04 <elisa> PFPS: just wondering why RPI ... what quibble do they ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: just wondering why RPI ... what quibble do they ... ←
17:27:30 <pfps> q+
17:27:36 <elisa> Jie: I talked with Jim this morning, and his main concern is with regard to the profiles - he thinks that there is more work do do before they are ready
Jie Bao: I talked with Jim this morning, and his main concern is with regard to the profiles - he thinks that there is more work do do before they are ready ←
17:27:48 <pfps> q+
17:27:49 <elisa> ... we don't have problems with the other documents
... we don't have problems with the other documents ←
17:27:58 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:28:02 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:28:19 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:28:38 <elisa> PFPS: I am uneasy / unhappy that a working group member didn't air their problems before the vote
Peter Patel-Schneider: I am uneasy / unhappy that a working group member didn't air their problems before the vote ←
17:28:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:28:56 <elisa> Jie: I think Jim has been clear over the last couple of days - this should not be surprising
Jie Bao: I think Jim has been clear over the last couple of days - this should not be surprising ←
17:29:06 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:29:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:29:21 <bijan> q-
Bijan Parsia: q- ←
17:29:23 <elisa> PFPS: It may be that there is confusion between the profiles document and exit criteria, but ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: It may be that there is confusion between the profiles document and exit criteria, but ... ←
17:29:30 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:29:43 <sandro> pfps: I am surprised and very unhappy to learn here and now that RPI has a problem with the Profiles document (as opposed to the Exit Criteria -- that part doesn't surprise me).
Peter Patel-Schneider: I am surprised and very unhappy to learn here and now that RPI has a problem with the Profiles document (as opposed to the Exit Criteria -- that part doesn't surprise me). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:30:06 <IanH> RESOLVED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria
RESOLVED: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax, Mapping to RDF Graphs, Direct Semantics, RDF-Based Semantics, Conformance, Profiles and XML Serialization are ready for publication as Candidate Recommendations, pending a decision on the precise terms of the exit criteria ←
17:30:12 <schneid> I would be surprised to hear that the Exit Criterium stuff has to do with the profiles, given that the /profiles/ won't probably have problems to meet the exit criteriums...
Michael Schneider: I would be surprised to hear that the Exit Criterium stuff has to do with the profiles, given that the /profiles/ won't probably have problems to meet the exit criteriums... ←
17:30:14 <sandro> woo hoo
Sandro Hawke: woo hoo ←
17:30:20 <pfps> a test publication run would help (to discover bad links) -as they can't be done in the Wiki
Peter Patel-Schneider: a test publication run would help (to discover bad links) -as they can't be done in the Wiki ←
17:30:39 <elisa> Ian: next item is progressing the next set of docs to last call
Ian Horrocks: next item is progressing the next set of docs to last call ←
17:30:45 <sandro> yep, it's high on my list, Peter.
Sandro Hawke: yep, it's high on my list, Peter. ←
17:30:54 <IanH> PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale and Quick Reference Guide are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale and Quick Reference Guide are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts ←
17:30:59 <msmith> q+ about primer
Michael Smith: q+ about primer ←
17:31:01 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
17:31:10 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
17:31:12 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 (DERI) ←
17:31:14 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
17:31:14 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1 (NIST) ←
17:31:23 <baojie> +1
17:31:26 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
17:31:27 <baojie> +q
17:31:31 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
17:31:32 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:31:33 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester) ←
17:31:34 <sandro> q+ about rdf:text
Sandro Hawke: q+ about rdf:text ←
17:31:41 <elisa> msmith: regarding the primer, there was discussion on the OWL DL and OWL Full section of the primer, and I don't think that discussion is concluded
Michael Smith: regarding the primer, there was discussion on the OWL DL and OWL Full section of the primer, and I don't think that discussion is concluded ←
17:31:57 <elisa> ... we went back and forth on the mailing list, and I don't think that was resolved
... we went back and forth on the mailing list, and I don't think that was resolved ←
17:32:06 <elisa> Ian: is this really editorial or crucial
Ian Horrocks: is this really editorial or crucial ←
17:32:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:13 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
17:32:18 <elisa> msmith: I think we can resolve to publish and work this out
Michael Smith: I think we can resolve to publish and work this out ←
17:32:25 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public ←
17:32:31 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:37 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:32:38 <elisa> Ian: then we can work this out during the last call period
Ian Horrocks: then we can work this out during the last call period ←
17:32:38 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
17:32:39 <pfps> q- about
Peter Patel-Schneider: q- about ←
17:32:42 <pfps> q- primer
Peter Patel-Schneider: q- primer ←
17:32:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:32:48 <pfps> q- rdf:text
Peter Patel-Schneider: q- rdf:text ←
17:32:53 <sandro> thanks peter
Sandro Hawke: thanks peter ←
17:32:58 <MarkusK_> q+ to answer Mike
Markus Krötzsch: q+ to answer Mike ←
17:33:02 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
17:33:36 <elisa> Jie: just for the record, for the primer, Deborah still has comments that she does not believe were fully incorporated; editors did acknowledge her suggestions
Jie Bao: just for the record, for the primer, Deborah still has comments that she does not believe were fully incorporated; editors did acknowledge her suggestions ←
17:33:55 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:33:56 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
17:33:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik (muted), Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli ←
17:33:59 <Zakim> ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille, zimmer
Zakim IRC Bot: ... (muted), bijan, schneid (muted), Achille, zimmer ←
17:34:10 <elisa> ... from Jim on the QRG - he believes that we should mention the OWL Full features, in an appendix, with the additional vocabulary
... from Jim on the QRG - he believes that we should mention the OWL Full features, in an appendix, with the additional vocabulary ←
17:34:13 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
17:34:34 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:34:41 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
17:34:41 <Zakim> MarkusK_, you wanted to answer Mike
Zakim IRC Bot: MarkusK_, you wanted to answer Mike ←
17:34:47 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:11 <msmith> great! my +1 vote stands, thank you.
Michael Smith: great! my +1 vote stands, thank you. ←
17:35:21 <elisa> Markus: to Mike -- I'm aware of the comment regarding OWL DL/OWL Full -- will do as suggested and sort this out, it's on the list for addressing very soon
Markus Krötzsch: to Mike -- I'm aware of the comment regarding OWL DL/OWL Full -- will do as suggested and sort this out, it's on the list for addressing very soon ←
17:35:36 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:35:49 <elisa> ... also from Mike about turtle syntax - had a response and is looking for Mike's ack
... also from Mike about turtle syntax - had a response and is looking for Mike's ack ←
17:36:09 <elisa> ... from Deborah -- there is an additional open issue that can be fixed quickly
... from Deborah -- there is an additional open issue that can be fixed quickly ←
17:36:19 <elisa> Ian: so are these really editorial in nature?
Ian Horrocks: so are these really editorial in nature? ←
17:36:57 <elisa> Markus: yes -- two of them are editorial, plus the issue Mike raised, which is reverting to prior
Markus Krötzsch: yes -- two of them are editorial, plus the issue Mike raised, which is reverting to prior ←
17:36:58 <pfps> q+
17:37:04 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
17:37:04 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
17:37:06 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
17:37:47 <elisa> schneid: I know that there are some terms that are not in the mapping from functional to RDF graphs, but to call them OWL Full -- these should go at least from RDF to functional syntax
Michael Schneider: I know that there are some terms that are not in the mapping from functional to RDF graphs, but to call them OWL Full -- these should go at least from RDF to functional syntax ←
17:38:14 <elisa> ... this has nothing to do with OWL Full -- the mapping document isn't about OWL Full, and so calling it this way is confusing
... this has nothing to do with OWL Full -- the mapping document isn't about OWL Full, and so calling it this way is confusing ←
17:38:21 <baojie> i agree
17:38:30 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:38:34 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:38:34 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:38:34 <elisa> Ian: basically, if we agree that these issues are editorial, then we can vote and come back to them later
Ian Horrocks: basically, if we agree that these issues are editorial, then we can vote and come back to them later ←
17:39:04 <elisa> PFPS: there is this matter of section 4.2 in the QRG, there is an outstanding disagreement on what it should say; there may be a more serious disagreement
Peter Patel-Schneider: there is this matter of section 4.2 in the QRG, there is an outstanding disagreement on what it should say; there may be a more serious disagreement ←
17:39:24 <elisa> ... all of this should be put into the earlier sections, depending on what Jim wants ...
... all of this should be put into the earlier sections, depending on what Jim wants ... ←
17:39:24 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:39:56 <elisa> ... that things like distinctMembers should show up in section 2 or 3
... that things like distinctMembers should show up in section 2 or 3 ←
17:40:21 <elisa> Ian: if this isn't worked out during last call, then in principle you could make an objection that would send it back to last call again
Ian Horrocks: if this isn't worked out during last call, then in principle you could make an objection that would send it back to last call again ←
17:40:31 <elisa> PFPS: I'm happy with the current state of the document
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy with the current state of the document ←
17:40:32 <baojie> +q
17:40:46 <IanH> ack baojie
Ian Horrocks: ack baojie ←
17:40:53 <elisa> Ian: for this to change, we would have to have the discussion
Ian Horrocks: for this to change, we would have to have the discussion ←
17:41:14 <elisa> Jie: we could add an editors note
Jie Bao: we could add an editors note ←
17:42:03 <elisa> Ian: we would be voting on the documents in their current state, so we could pull the document from the list of those going to last call
Ian Horrocks: we would be voting on the documents in their current state, so we could pull the document from the list of those going to last call ←
17:42:44 <bijan> Bit strange that a main editor is voting against the document :)
Bijan Parsia: Bit strange that a main editor is voting against the document :) ←
17:42:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:42:54 <elisa> ... if you want me to split this out from the proposal, we could do so
... if you want me to split this out from the proposal, we could do so ←
17:43:08 <IanH> PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
PROPOSED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts ←
17:43:12 <alanr> voting against document in current form, with constructive proposal on how to resolve.
Alan Ruttenberg: voting against document in current form, with constructive proposal on how to resolve. ←
17:43:15 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:43:16 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:43:16 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
17:43:16 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
17:43:17 <alanr> jie is
Alan Ruttenberg: jie is ←
17:43:17 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
17:43:18 <alanr> 0
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 ←
17:43:20 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 (DERI) ←
17:43:23 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:43:24 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester) ←
17:43:26 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1 (NIST) ←
17:43:26 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
17:43:33 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
+1 (Sandpiper Software) ←
17:43:39 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
17:43:43 <alanr> oops +1 on these
Alan Ruttenberg: oops +1 on these ←
17:43:53 <pfps> I wonder what SC thinks is lacking in these documents.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I wonder what SC thinks is lacking in these documents. ←
17:43:59 <pfps> sorry
Peter Patel-Schneider: sorry ←
17:44:19 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine) ←
17:44:32 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke) ←
17:44:47 <IanH> RESOLVED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts
RESOLVED: Document Overview, Primer, New Features and Rationale are ready for publication as Last Call Working Drafts ←
17:45:14 <pfps> Just a note that there are one or two agreed-on changes to go into Primer.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Just a note that there are one or two agreed-on changes to go into Primer. ←
17:45:27 <IanH> PROPOSED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as Last Call Working Draft
PROPOSED: Quick Reference Guide is ready for publication as Last Call Working Draft ←
17:45:31 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:45:37 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester) ←
17:45:45 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 Science Commons ←
17:45:45 <ekw> +1
Unknown ekw: +1 ←
17:45:48 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
17:45:53 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
+1 (Sandpiper Software) ←
17:45:53 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
17:45:53 <baojie> -1 (RPI) (need to mention OWL full features in some way)
Jie Bao: -1 (RPI) (need to mention OWL full features in some way) ←
17:45:53 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 (DERI) ←
17:45:56 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
17:45:56 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:45:59 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
17:46:00 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine) ←
17:46:03 <ekw> +1(NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1(NIST) ←
17:46:11 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke) ←
17:46:46 <bijan> Will he lie down in the road
Bijan Parsia: Will he lie down in the road ←
17:46:58 <pfps> q+
17:47:01 <alanr> Do we need to do that, or can we give it the week to resolve?
Alan Ruttenberg: Do we need to do that, or can we give it the week to resolve? ←
17:47:04 <elisa> Ian: procedure on how to handle objection?
Ian Horrocks: procedure on how to handle objection? ←
17:47:11 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:47:20 <elisa> Sandro: Jie - are you firmly opposed to this happening today?
Sandro Hawke: Jie - are you firmly opposed to this happening today? ←
17:47:42 <elisa> ... would you be willing to ... if we have this vote next week, would you be ok?
... would you be willing to ... if we have this vote next week, would you be ok? ←
17:47:45 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
17:47:50 <pfps> q-
17:47:59 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:48:01 <elisa> Jie: if OWL Full features are mentioned in some way, I'll have no objection
Jie Bao: if OWL Full features are mentioned in some way, I'll have no objection ←
17:48:05 <pfps> I suggest that this be ironed out *quickly*.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I suggest that this be ironed out *quickly*. ←
17:48:14 <elisa> Ian: so we will postpone this vote to next week
Ian Horrocks: so we will postpone this vote to next week ←
17:48:38 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
17:48:52 <elisa> Bijan: if it goes this way next week, then we should give it up - not have a quick reference quide, and would anyone else be deadlocking
Bijan Parsia: if it goes this way next week, then we should give it up - not have a quick reference quide, and would anyone else be deadlocking ←
17:48:54 <pfps> q+
17:49:01 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
17:49:18 <elisa> Ian: would others vote against it going to last call if it contains something about OWL Full?
Ian Horrocks: would others vote against it going to last call if it contains something about OWL Full? ←
17:49:19 <pfps> q-
17:49:20 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:49:20 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
17:49:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:32 <elisa> Alan: we could vote on this issue without taking the whole document down
Alan Ruttenberg: we could vote on this issue without taking the whole document down ←
17:49:39 <bijan> It's not speculation. If no one will oppose the other way we should decide now
Bijan Parsia: It's not speculation. If no one will oppose the other way we should decide now ←
17:49:48 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:49:53 <elisa> Ian: yes, we should discuss this over the week and see if it can be resolved
Ian Horrocks: yes, we should discuss this over the week and see if it can be resolved ←
17:50:03 <elisa> Ian: any issues on the third proposal?
Ian Horrocks: any issues on the third proposal? ←
17:50:03 <schneid> I would like to state that I do not consider this as a discussion about "somthing about OWL Full"
Michael Schneider: I would like to state that I do not consider this as a discussion about "somthing about OWL Full" ←
17:50:22 <schneid> I said it before
Michael Schneider: I said it before ←
17:50:23 <bijan> Moving on
Bijan Parsia: Moving on ←
17:50:25 <bijan> Back to email
Bijan Parsia: Back to email ←
17:50:26 <IanH> PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
PROPOSED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note ←
17:50:29 <alanr> noted - take it to email
Alan Ruttenberg: noted - take it to email ←
17:50:32 <pfps> +1 ALU
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 ALU ←
17:50:33 <baojie> +1 (RPI)
17:50:34 <uli> +1 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +1 (Manchester) ←
17:50:35 <alanr> 0 Science Commons
Alan Ruttenberg: 0 Science Commons ←
17:50:38 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
17:50:39 <msmith> +1 (C&P)
Michael Smith: +1 (C&P) ←
17:50:40 <zimmer> +1 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 (DERI) ←
17:50:41 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1 (NIST) ←
17:50:42 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
17:50:43 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
17:50:43 <Achille> 0 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: 0 (IBM) ←
17:50:46 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
+1 (Sandpiper Software) ←
17:50:48 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
17:50:48 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
17:50:54 <IanH> +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UVSQ (proxy from Christine) ←
17:50:56 <bijan> q+ to ask about abstainers
Bijan Parsia: q+ to ask about abstainers ←
17:51:05 <IanH> +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke)
Ian Horrocks: +1 UvA (proxy from Rinke) ←
17:51:07 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
17:51:09 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:15 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
17:51:15 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:51:19 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:51:19 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:51:30 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:51:33 <IanH> ack bijan
Ian Horrocks: ack bijan ←
17:51:33 <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to ask about abstainers
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan, you wanted to ask about abstainers ←
17:51:46 <alanr> I abstained because the issue of labels was not resolved in a way I was comfortable
Alan Ruttenberg: I abstained because the issue of labels was not resolved in a way I was comfortable ←
17:51:48 <elisa> Bijan: about the abstainers -- in general it's better if we don't have abstentions ... is there anything that would change their position
Bijan Parsia: about the abstainers -- in general it's better if we don't have abstentions ... is there anything that would change their position ←
17:52:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:52:23 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
17:52:23 <Zakim> alanr was already muted, alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr was already muted, alanr ←
17:52:28 <elisa> Achille: I'm still not convinced that we need yet another syntax
Achille Fokoue: I'm still not convinced that we need yet another syntax ←
17:52:59 <pfps> This is not a REC document, just a Note, so I think that we have already taken care of Achille's issue.
Peter Patel-Schneider: This is not a REC document, just a Note, so I think that we have already taken care of Achille's issue. ←
17:53:08 <IanH> RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note
RESOLVED: Manchester Syntax is ready for publication as a Working Group note ←
17:53:18 <bijan> HURRAH!
Bijan Parsia: HURRAH! ←
17:53:22 <Zhe> :)
17:53:22 <alanr> woot!
Alan Ruttenberg: woot! ←
17:53:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:53:57 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
17:54:00 <elisa> Topic: back to the discussion on rdf:text
17:54:08 <alanr> we said we would put it at risk
Alan Ruttenberg: we said we would put it at risk ←
17:54:08 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
17:54:16 <alanr> yes
Alan Ruttenberg: yes ←
17:54:20 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
17:54:22 <alanr> beginning of the meeting
Alan Ruttenberg: beginning of the meeting ←
17:54:28 <schneid> zakim, ??P3 is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
17:54:28 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:54:30 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:54:30 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:54:34 <alanr> no resolution. Ian said we will do. No one had comments.
Alan Ruttenberg: no resolution. Ian said we will do. No one had comments. ←
17:55:04 <alanr> issue: vote not announced before meeting...
ISSUE: vote not announced before meeting... ←
17:55:05 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-151 - Vote not announced before meeting... ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/151/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-151 - Vote not announced before meeting... ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/151/edit . ←
17:55:05 <MarkusK_> Update on Primer: the two open concerns of Mike have been settled and confirmed by email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0232.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0230.html (sorry for this late addon to the earlier discussion)
Markus Krötzsch: Update on Primer: the two open concerns of Mike have been settled and confirmed by email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0232.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0230.html (sorry for this late addon to the earlier discussion) ←
17:55:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:55:13 <elisa> Sandro: we should have a resolution on the rdf:text issue with an action to have someone make the changes to the documents
Sandro Hawke: we should have a resolution on the rdf:text issue with an action to have someone make the changes to the documents ←
17:55:30 <elisa> Ian: so let's have discussion on making rdf:text at risk
Ian Horrocks: so let's have discussion on making rdf:text at risk ←
17:55:33 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:56:02 <elisa> Sandro: high-level summary - there seem to be strong positions on several sides;
Sandro Hawke: high-level summary - there seem to be strong positions on several sides; ←
17:56:04 <pfps> q+
17:56:24 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
17:56:34 <alanr> reduces change of having an LC if things go back
Alan Ruttenberg: reduces chance of having an LC if things go back ←
17:56:35 <elisa> ... several people from SPARQL, Pat Hayes have positions that are not clear in terms of how to reconcile
... several people from SPARQL, Pat Hayes have positions that are not clear in terms of how to reconcile ←
17:56:39 <alanr> s/change/chance/
17:56:52 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
17:56:54 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
Boris Motik: Zakim, unmute me ←
17:56:54 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bmotik should no longer be muted ←
17:56:57 <elisa> ... we still might have to go back to last call, but this increases the odds of being able to proceed
... we still might have to go back to last call, but this increases the odds of being able to proceed ←
17:57:06 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
17:57:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:57:12 <sandro> sandro: Putting rdf:text At Risk reduced the odds of us needing to go back to Last Call if rdf:text changes.
Sandro Hawke: Putting rdf:text At Risk reduced the odds of us needing to go back to Last Call if rdf:text changes. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:57:37 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
17:57:41 <elisa> PFPS: I was thinking about what needs to be changed - the direct semantics is in the worst shape; as far as implementations go, very little would need to be changed to take out rdf:text, as long as implementers
Peter Patel-Schneider: I was thinking about what needs to be changed - the direct semantics is in the worst shape; as far as implementations go, very little would need to be changed to take out rdf:text, as long as implementers ←
17:57:47 <alanr> alan +1 to peter's assessment
Alan Ruttenberg: alan +1 to peter's assessment ←
17:57:50 <elisa> ... agree to put in a switch somewhere
... agree to put in a switch somewhere ←
17:57:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
17:58:03 <alanr> syntax
Alan Ruttenberg: syntax ←
17:58:11 <schneid> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Michael Schneider: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
17:58:11 <Zakim> +schneid; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +schneid; got it ←
17:58:12 <elisa> Sandro: if we can flag those points now
Sandro Hawke: if we can flag those points now ←
17:58:14 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
17:58:14 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
17:58:14 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
17:58:38 <elisa> PFPS: direct semantics will be the most difficult
Peter Patel-Schneider: direct semantics will be the most difficult ←
17:59:24 <bmotik> I'm surprised with the option of removing rdf:text.
Boris Motik: I'm surprised with the option of removing rdf:text. ←
17:59:30 <bmotik> What would have put into the documents then?
Boris Motik: What would have put into the documents then? ←
17:59:39 <bmotik> We'd need to change Syntax quite a bit
Boris Motik: We'd need to change Syntax quite a bit ←
17:59:47 <pfps> It would be a mess, I agree.
Peter Patel-Schneider: It would be a mess, I agree. ←
17:59:51 <bmotik> And the facets should go away.
Boris Motik: And the facets should go away. ←
17:59:56 <bmotik> We should *NOT* go there.
Boris Motik: We should *NOT* go there. ←
18:00:03 <bmotik> WE should make these people see the light.
Boris Motik: WE should make these people see the light. ←
18:00:14 <bmotik> In fact, I think that only Pat is entrneched.
Boris Motik: In fact, I think that only Pat is entrneched. ←
18:00:19 <alanr> Let's hope for the best, but document our current state well to protect ourselves
Alan Ruttenberg: Let's hope for the best, but document our current state well to protect ourselves ←
18:00:20 <pfps> One option would be to have owl:text!
Peter Patel-Schneider: One option would be to have owl:text! ←
18:00:29 <bmotik> I had an impression that Andy and Eric were more of less conceding.
Boris Motik: I had an impression that Andy and Eric were more of less conceding. ←
18:00:30 <pfps> q+
18:00:38 <bmotik> But this might have been just my impression.
Boris Motik: But this might have been just my impression. ←
18:00:43 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:00:58 <bmotik> Pat is the only one with a really strong opinion about it.
Boris Motik: Pat is the only one with a really strong opinion about it. ←
18:00:59 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:01:02 <elisa> PFPS: Let's make it owl:text
Peter Patel-Schneider: Let's make it owl:text ←
18:01:14 <elisa> Sandro: it might help, it's hard to say
Sandro Hawke: it might help, it's hard to say ←
18:01:34 <elisa> PFPS: owl:text would make it internal to our documents, and we could arrange to emit the right things
Peter Patel-Schneider: owl:text would make it internal to our documents, and we could arrange to emit the right things ←
18:01:49 <bmotik> But that's already there!
Boris Motik: But that's already there! ←
18:02:10 <bmotik> Well, there was a MUST in the documents,
Boris Motik: Well, there was a MUST in the documents, ←
18:02:10 <elisa> Sandro: if we can be careful enough about what we emit, then that's one option
Sandro Hawke: if we can be careful enough about what we emit, then that's one option ←
18:02:11 <pfps> I can write up a CM - what needs to be change to make various things work.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I can write up a CM - what needs to be change to make various things work. ←
18:02:16 <bmotik> and people changed it to SHOULD.
Boris Motik: and people changed it to SHOULD. ←
18:02:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:02:35 <alanr> we are not going to solve this now.
Alan Ruttenberg: we are not going to solve this now. ←
18:02:36 <bmotik> I'm open to this.
Boris Motik: I'm open to this. ←
18:02:43 <elisa> Sandro: it didn't handle the lang function -- is it just wordsmithing about how we emit the triples, or is there some other solution
Sandro Hawke: it didn't handle the lang function -- is it just wordsmithing about how we emit the triples, or is there some other solution ←
18:02:45 <alanr> at hand is dealing with putting at risk.
Alan Ruttenberg: at hand is dealing with putting at risk. ←
18:03:07 <pfps> An "at risk" statement has to give the fallback position!
Peter Patel-Schneider: An "at risk" statement has to give the fallback position! ←
18:03:14 <bmotik> I need more fire power.
Boris Motik: I need more fire power. ←
18:03:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:03:26 <elisa> Ian: is there anything we can really do aside from this at risk position
Ian Horrocks: is there anything we can really do aside from this at risk position ←
18:03:34 <alanr> fallback position is remove rdf:text from OWL 2
Alan Ruttenberg: fallback position is remove rdf:text from OWL 2 ←
18:03:42 <uli> Boris, how can we help with fire power?
Uli Sattler: Boris, how can we help with fire power? ←
18:04:01 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
18:04:05 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:04:08 <elisa> Sandro: this gives us a little more cover for some changes that might happen - at risk is more of a comment allowing us to refactor how owl:text is handled
Sandro Hawke: this gives us a little more cover for some changes that might happen - at risk is more of a comment allowing us to refactor how owl:text is handled ←
18:04:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
18:04:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik, Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli (muted),
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Peter_Patel-Schneider, Sandro, IanH, Elisa_Kendall, bcuencagrau (muted), alanr (muted), msmith, bmotik, Zhe (muted), baojie, MarkusK_, ekw (muted), uli (muted), ←
18:04:14 <Zakim> ... Achille, zimmer, schneid (muted), ??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: ... Achille, zimmer, schneid (muted), ??P2 ←
18:04:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see christine, Achille, schneid, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see christine, Achille, schneid, Zhe, uli, baojie, bmotik, MarkusK_, msmith, bcuencagrau, pfps, elisa, ekw, zimmer, RRSAgent, Zakim, alanr, IanH, sandro, trackbot ←
18:04:27 <christine> zakim, ??P2 is christine
Christine Golbreich: zakim, ??P2 is christine ←
18:04:27 <Zakim> +christine; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +christine; got it ←
18:04:28 <elisa> PFPS: that may be the best worst we can do
Peter Patel-Schneider: that may be the best worst we can do ←
18:04:54 <elisa> Ian: we could propose to mark rdf:text as being at risk - is that reasonable at this point?
Ian Horrocks: we could propose to mark rdf:text as being at risk - is that reasonable at this point? ←
18:04:55 <pfps> Reasonable is not the word to use. :-(
Peter Patel-Schneider: Reasonable is not the word to use. :-( ←
18:05:04 <IanH> PROPOSED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
PROPOSED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk" ←
18:05:20 <pfps> +0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
Peter Patel-Schneider: +0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ←
18:05:21 <sandro> +1 (W3C)
Sandro Hawke: +1 (W3C) ←
18:05:26 <baojie> 0 (RPI)
18:05:29 <elisa> +1 (Sandpiper Software)
+1 (Sandpiper Software) ←
18:05:30 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
18:05:31 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
18:05:31 <bmotik> +1 (Oxford)
Boris Motik: +1 (Oxford) ←
18:05:31 <ekw> +1 (NIST)
Unknown ekw: +1 (NIST) ←
18:05:37 <MarkusK_> +1 (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch: +1 (FZI) ←
18:05:40 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
18:05:50 <zimmer> 0 (DERI)
Antoine Zimmermann: 0 (DERI) ←
18:05:56 <msmith> +1
Michael Smith: +1 ←
18:05:58 <uli> +0 (Manchester)
Uli Sattler: +0 (Manchester) ←
18:06:19 <elisa> Ian: any more on this?
Ian Horrocks: any more on this? ←
18:06:30 <IanH> RESOLVED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk"
RESOLVED: rdf:text should be marked as being "at risk" ←
18:06:57 <bmotik> q+
Boris Motik: q+ ←
18:07:02 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:07:03 <bmotik> I could use some more fire power.
Boris Motik: I could use some more fire power. ←
18:07:06 <IanH> ack bmotik
Ian Horrocks: ack bmotik ←
18:07:15 <bmotik> Yes.
Boris Motik: Yes. ←
18:07:16 <pfps> I'll take a look.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll take a look. ←
18:07:27 <alanr> "oh no"
Alan Ruttenberg: "oh no" ←
18:07:28 <elisa> Ian: so more of us will try to look at this and join in the discussion
Ian Horrocks: so more of us will try to look at this and join in the discussion ←
18:07:57 <pfps> Any *discussion* on CR exit?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Any *discussion* on CR exit? ←
18:08:03 <elisa> Ian: did not really cover last call comments
Ian Horrocks: did not really cover last call comments ←
18:08:12 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:27 <elisa> Ian: any utility in discussing LC comments and responses? ...no...
Ian Horrocks: any utility in discussing LC comments and responses? ...no... ←
18:08:27 <schneid> I am still waiting for Jeremy to answer the NPA reply
Michael Schneider: I am still waiting for Jeremy to answer the NPA reply ←
18:08:34 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criteria ←
18:08:42 <pfps> I've been following the (d)evolution of the page.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I've been following the (d)evolution of the page. ←
18:08:43 <IanH> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criterai
Ian Horrocks: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/CR_Exit_Criterai ←
18:08:51 <pfps> q+
18:08:52 <elisa> Ian: CR exit criteria -- has anyone had a chance to look at the proposal and have comments?
Ian Horrocks: CR exit criteria -- has anyone had a chance to look at the proposal and have comments? ←
18:08:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:08:56 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:09:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:09:51 <elisa> PFPS: in particular, the four profiles -- look just right; the only change I might make - we might be able to get away with one implementation that shows benefits, and the other shows interoperability
Peter Patel-Schneider: in particular, the four profiles -- look just right; the only change I might make - we might be able to get away with one implementation that shows benefits, and the other shows interoperability ←
18:09:51 <alanr> seems reasonable
Alan Ruttenberg: seems reasonable ←
18:10:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:10:15 <msmith> q+ to ask about benefit
Michael Smith: q+ to ask about benefit ←
18:10:20 <elisa> Ian: yes, what we have may be a bit strong - one that shows benefit and one that shows interoperability might be enough,
Ian Horrocks: yes, what we have may be a bit strong - one that shows benefit and one that shows interoperability might be enough, ←
18:10:21 <IanH> ack msmith
Ian Horrocks: ack msmith ←
18:10:21 <Zakim> msmith, you wanted to ask about benefit
Zakim IRC Bot: msmith, you wanted to ask about benefit ←
18:10:27 <elisa> ... we might get some pushback on that
... we might get some pushback on that ←
18:10:42 <pfps> In my opinion Pellet works as a native EL reasoner.
Peter Patel-Schneider: In my opinion Pellet works as a native EL reasoner. ←
18:10:46 <alanr> that works
Alan Ruttenberg: that works ←
18:10:55 <elisa> msmith: what do you mean by shows benefit -- demonstrating that the benefit comes from EL vs DL comes down to run time
Michael Smith: what do you mean by shows benefit -- demonstrating that the benefit comes from EL vs DL comes down to run time ←
18:10:57 <pfps> q+
18:11:02 <alanr> performance is a feature
Alan Ruttenberg: performance is a feature ←
18:11:02 <MarkusK_> q+
Markus Krötzsch: q+ ←
18:11:19 <msmith> great
Michael Smith: great ←
18:11:19 <sandro> yeah, that works. Pellet can count as both DL and EL (given having this special EL processor in it).
Sandro Hawke: yeah, that works. Pellet can count as both DL and EL (given having this special EL processor in it). ←
18:11:23 <elisa> Ian: Pellet is a perfect example - using a different algorithm to demonstrate EL
Ian Horrocks: Pellet is a perfect example - using a different algorithm to demonstrate EL ←
18:11:24 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:11:46 <elisa> PFPS: Pellet is not only acceptable EL exemplar, but exemplary EL exemplar
Peter Patel-Schneider: Pellet is not only acceptable EL exemplar, but exemplary EL exemplar ←
18:12:15 <pfps> q+
18:12:17 <elisa> Sandro: we might want to change the language to make this clear
Sandro Hawke: we might want to change the language to make this clear ←
18:12:23 <pfps> q+ to ask about process
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to ask about process ←
18:12:43 <IanH> ack MarkusK_
Ian Horrocks: ack MarkusK_ ←
18:12:44 <elisa> Ian: should make this clear that multiple examples could be supported by the same implementation
Ian Horrocks: should make this clear that multiple examples could be supported by the same implementation ←
18:12:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:30 <elisa> Markus: benefit in the fact that you have it implemented
Markus Krötzsch: benefit in the fact that you have it implemented ←
18:13:51 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:13:54 <IanH> ack pfps
Ian Horrocks: ack pfps ←
18:13:54 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask about process
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to ask about process ←
18:14:12 <elisa> Ian: we are really dependent on the integrity of implementers that their implementation supports this, which is ok
Ian Horrocks: we are really dependent on the integrity of implementers that their implementation supports this, which is ok ←
18:14:14 <uli> ?
Uli Sattler: ? ←
18:14:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:14:38 <uli> can you repeat the question, peter?
Uli Sattler: can you repeat the question, peter? ←
18:14:41 <elisa> PFPS: so if we don't have an implementation for OWL2 QL, does that throw OWL2 under the bus, or the profiles under the bus?
Peter Patel-Schneider: so if we don't have an implementation for OWL2 QL, does that throw OWL2 under the bus, or the profiles under the bus? ←
18:14:58 <alanr> but we shouldn't have any trouble finding QL implementations - quonto/owlgres
Alan Ruttenberg: but we shouldn't have any trouble finding QL implementations - quonto/owlgres ←
18:15:13 <elisa> ... I would hope that we could claim that we can only yank that profile rather than the whole profile section
... I would hope that we could claim that we can only yank that profile rather than the whole profile section ←
18:15:18 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:15:28 <elisa> PFPS: what happens if we flunk the OWL Full test?
Peter Patel-Schneider: what happens if we flunk the OWL Full test? ←
18:15:31 <alanr> deliberately loose for the owl full language
Alan Ruttenberg: deliberately loose for the owl full language ←
18:15:41 <schneid> q+
Michael Schneider: q+ ←
18:15:45 <schneid> zakim, unmute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, unmute me ←
18:15:45 <Zakim> schneid should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should no longer be muted ←
18:15:47 <IanH> ack schneid
Ian Horrocks: ack schneid ←
18:16:43 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:16:49 <elisa> schneid: should the test suite -- there will be no hope for reaching the 80% mark - there are some tests that are not as hard as the special tests from OWL 1, but they are crafted in a way such that certain reasoners will have no chance
Michael Schneider: should the test suite -- there will be no hope for reaching the 80% mark - there are some tests that are not as hard as the special tests from OWL 1, but they are crafted in a way such that certain reasoners will have no chance ←
18:17:07 <elisa> Sandro: the question here is whether there will be tests that no reasoner can pass
Sandro Hawke: the question here is whether there will be tests that no reasoner can pass ←
18:17:36 <elisa> schneid: I can look at it and say that these tests are probably handled by general reasoners and these are probably not
Michael Schneider: I can look at it and say that these tests are probably handled by general reasoners and these are probably not ←
18:17:48 <ekw> Gotta go! Bye.
Unknown ekw: Gotta go! Bye. ←
18:17:54 <Zakim> -ekw
Zakim IRC Bot: -ekw ←
18:18:03 <elisa> Ian: do you think it would be possible to develop a reasoner that would pass those tests?
Ian Horrocks: do you think it would be possible to develop a reasoner that would pass those tests? ←
18:18:34 <alanr> q+
Alan Ruttenberg: q+ ←
18:18:38 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:18:52 <sandro> Possible clause (that I DON'T support): Every OWL 2 Full test case must be passed by at least two entailment checkers
Sandro Hawke: Possible clause (that I DON'T support): Every OWL 2 Full test case must be passed by at least two entailment checkers ←
18:18:57 <elisa> schneid: I don't know what was done in the past - it would take time to produce it; perhaps 40% would go through Jena
Michael Schneider: I don't know what was done in the past - it would take time to produce it; perhaps 40% would go through Jena ←
18:19:03 <IanH> ack alanr
Ian Horrocks: ack alanr ←
18:19:33 <elisa> Alan: you can do that, but do you think that the exit criteria would be strengthen by having some number of tests
Alan Ruttenberg: you can do that, but do you think that the exit criteria would be strengthen by having some number of tests ←
18:19:43 <alanr> zakim, mute me
Alan Ruttenberg: zakim, mute me ←
18:19:43 <Zakim> alanr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: alanr should now be muted ←
18:20:21 <elisa> schneid: we have a number of really good reasoners - could we create a system in the next few weeks that would do most of our test cases ...
Michael Schneider: we have a number of really good reasoners - could we create a system in the next few weeks that would do most of our test cases ... ←
18:20:39 <elisa> Ian: what we have to determine is whether the current wording in the exit criteria is reasonable
Ian Horrocks: what we have to determine is whether the current wording in the exit criteria is reasonable ←
18:20:59 <alanr> Michael - can you send email suggesting a proposal?
Alan Ruttenberg: Michael - can you send email suggesting a proposal? ←
18:21:15 <alanr> and we can discuss this on email this week
Alan Ruttenberg: and we can discuss this on email this week ←
18:21:26 <elisa> schneid: we should completely rethink this, because we're just lucky that we have existing reasoners that can do this, but you can't compare OWL to HTML
Michael Schneider: we should completely rethink this, because we're just lucky that we have existing reasoners that can do this, but you can't compare OWL to HTML ←
18:21:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:21:54 <elisa> Ian: I sympathize, but this kind of exit criteria ... is at least strongly expected
Ian Horrocks: I sympathize, but this kind of exit criteria ... is at least strongly expected ←
18:22:06 <elisa> Sandro: we need to prove that the specification is implementable
Sandro Hawke: we need to prove that the specification is implementable ←
18:22:38 <elisa> Ian: why would we not just say that it is obviously implementable
Ian Horrocks: why would we not just say that it is obviously implementable ←
18:22:47 <elisa> schneid: it should at least be realistic
Michael Schneider: it should at least be realistic ←
18:22:55 <elisa> Sandro: aside from OWL Full
Sandro Hawke: aside from OWL Full ←
18:23:11 <elisa> schneid: we can meet all the other profiles and OWL DL easily ...
Michael Schneider: we can meet all the other profiles and OWL DL easily ... ←
18:23:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:23:16 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
18:23:21 <elisa> Ian: so we're only discussing OWL Full
Ian Horrocks: so we're only discussing OWL Full ←
18:24:01 <elisa> schneid: all I want is ... I will do what I can in the time that I have, but it is unrealistic to reach 80%
Michael Schneider: all I want is ... I will do what I can in the time that I have, but it is unrealistic to reach 80% ←
18:24:11 <sandro> "# Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and taking advantage of at least some of the claimed benefits of OWL 2 Full† "
Sandro Hawke: "# Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and taking advantage of at least some of the claimed benefits of OWL 2 Full† " ←
18:24:31 <uli> so where is the problem then?
Uli Sattler: so where is the problem then? ←
18:24:44 <elisa> schneid: if something like a significant part is enough,
Michael Schneider: if something like a significant part is enough, ←
18:25:03 <elisa> Ian: I'm not really understanding your objection/suggestion
Ian Horrocks: I'm not really understanding your objection/suggestion ←
18:25:21 <elisa> Sandro: he may be talking about the 80% text that has been removed
Sandro Hawke: he may be talking about the 80% text that has been removed ←
18:25:28 <alanr> happy?
Alan Ruttenberg: happy? ←
18:25:34 <uli> Michael, you worry about things you shouldn't worry about!
Uli Sattler: Michael, you worry about things you shouldn't worry about! ←
18:25:35 <elisa> schneid: a useful subset is fine -- that's what Jena already does
Michael Schneider: a useful subset is fine -- that's what Jena already does ←
18:25:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:25:39 <alanr> good.
Alan Ruttenberg: good. ←
18:25:40 <msmith> exactly! we're in agreement. :)
Michael Smith: exactly! we're in agreement. :) ←
18:26:33 <elisa> Ian: would you prefer if we put in that implementations should pass some tests
Ian Horrocks: would you prefer if we put in that implementations should pass some tests ←
18:26:45 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
18:26:46 <elisa> ... we can take that into email discussion
... we can take that into email discussion ←
18:26:54 <schneid> zakim, mute me
Michael Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
18:26:54 <Zakim> schneid should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: schneid should now be muted ←
18:27:12 <elisa> Ian: we're really out of time
Ian Horrocks: we're really out of time ←
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: Two notable changes to test results...
Michael Smith: Two notable changes to test results... [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ] ←
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: 1) Test suite results now include OWLAPI profile checking results. Some failures for profile checks, for which I will follow up to determine if the tester or the test is wrong.
Michael Smith: 1) Test suite results now include OWLAPI profile checking results. Some failures for profile checks, for which I will follow up to determine if the tester or the test is wrong. [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ] ←
18:27:16 <msmith> msmith: 2) All RDF vocab is now used in at least one test case (with an exception for property used with nary datatype restrictions).
Michael Smith: 2) All RDF vocab is now used in at least one test case (with an exception for property used with nary datatype restrictions). [ Scribe Assist by Michael Smith ] ←
18:27:37 <elisa> ... we'll be coming back to talk about test suites over the next few weeks, in CR we will be doing much more testing
... we'll be coming back to talk about test suites over the next few weeks, in CR we will be doing much more testing ←
18:27:42 <elisa> Ian: AOB?
Ian Horrocks: AOB? ←
18:27:53 <uli> hurray!
Uli Sattler: hurray! ←
18:28:15 <elisa> Ian: congratulations for progressing almost all of our documents;
Ian Horrocks: congratulations for progressing almost all of our documents; ←
18:28:18 <alanr> bye
Alan Ruttenberg: bye ←
18:28:19 <Zakim> -uli
Zakim IRC Bot: -uli ←
18:28:21 <Zakim> -baojie
Zakim IRC Bot: -baojie ←
18:28:21 <Zhe> bye
18:28:22 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
18:28:22 <Zakim> -msmith
Zakim IRC Bot: -msmith ←
18:28:23 <Zakim> -bmotik
Zakim IRC Bot: -bmotik ←
18:28:24 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
18:28:26 <Zakim> -alanr
Zakim IRC Bot: -alanr ←
18:28:26 <Zakim> -MarkusK_
Zakim IRC Bot: -MarkusK_ ←
18:28:28 <Zakim> -Achille
Zakim IRC Bot: -Achille ←
18:28:32 <Zakim> -bcuencagrau
Zakim IRC Bot: -bcuencagrau ←
18:28:35 <zimmer> good bye
Antoine Zimmermann: good bye ←
18:28:40 <Zakim> -schneid
Zakim IRC Bot: -schneid ←
18:28:50 <IanH> RRSAgent, make records public
Ian Horrocks: RRSAgent, make records public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe