IRC log of owl on 2008-04-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
12:48:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
12:48:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:48:30 [trackbot-ng]
RRSAgent, make logs public
12:48:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #owl
12:48:32 [trackbot-ng]
Zakim, this will be OWLWG
12:48:32 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot-ng
12:48:33 [trackbot-ng]
Meeting: OWL Working Group Teleconference
12:48:33 [trackbot-ng]
Date: 03 April 2008
12:49:28 [sandro]
zakim, room for 5?
12:49:29 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; conference Team_(owl)12:49Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 60 minutes until 1349Z
12:58:08 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
13:01:46 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
13:02:39 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
13:06:05 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
13:06:54 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
13:08:52 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)12:49Z has now started
13:09:00 [Zakim]
+Sandro
13:09:03 [Zakim]
-Sandro
13:09:04 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)12:49Z has ended
13:09:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro
13:09:05 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
13:09:54 [sandro]
zakim, room for 5 for 480 minutes?
13:09:55 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; conference Team_(owl)13:09Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 480 minutes until 2109Z
13:10:20 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to:
CONFERENCE CODE 26632
13:11:22 [sandro]
scribenick: jjc
13:11:23 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
13:11:37 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
13:11:39 [evrensirin]
evrensirin has joined #owl
13:11:49 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
13:12:04 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
13:12:05 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
13:12:14 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
13:12:15 [uli_]
uli_ has joined #owl
13:15:06 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
13:20:43 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
13:20:50 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
13:20:50 [JLUCIANO]
JLUCIANO has joined #owl
13:20:53 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
13:20:53 [uli_]
uli_ has joined #owl
13:20:59 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
13:21:04 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
13:21:21 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
13:21:31 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
13:21:40 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
13:21:42 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #owl
13:21:50 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
13:21:52 [jjc2]
scribenick jjc2
13:21:53 [evrensirin]
evrensirin has joined #owl
13:21:58 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
13:22:07 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
13:22:08 [jjc2]
RollCall:
13:22:18 [jjc2]
Boris, Peter, Bernardo, Rinke
13:22:45 [jjc2]
Marcus, Deb, Michael Schneider,
13:22:49 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
13:22:51 [jjc2]
Carston, Achille
13:22:55 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
13:22:58 [jjc2]
JaoBao
13:23:02 [jjc2]
Evren, MikeSmith
13:23:10 [jjc2]
Bijan, Uli,
13:23:25 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
13:23:48 [jjc2]
Thomas Schneider, Jeremy, Evan, Sandro, Joanna, Ian, Alan
13:23:50 [jjc2]
===
13:23:59 [jjc2]
Hanson Graves, Lockheed Martin
13:24:05 [jjc2]
Alex Tucker
13:24:17 [msmith]
petr kremen
13:24:30 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
13:24:31 [jjc2]
Frances Jwa
13:24:42 [jjc2]
Francis Gasse
13:24:48 [ivan]
ivan has joined #owl
13:24:51 [jjc2]
delete - 2
13:25:13 [msmith]
mike grove
13:25:13 [thomassch]
Petr Kremen
13:25:20 [jjc2]
Michael Grove,
13:25:36 [jjc2]
Dimitri Univ of Manchester
13:25:48 [jjc2]
(from === are observers)
13:25:59 [jjc2]
+ thomas schneider as observer
13:26:39 [jjc2]
Peter arranges dinner, sponsered by Clark&Parsia
13:26:49 [jjc2]
22 for dinner
13:27:04 [jjc2]
Proposed: Vote of thanks to Clark and Parsia
13:27:12 [jjc2]
Resolved: thanks to Clark and Parsia
13:28:14 [sandro]
show up at 7. 800 W Diamond Ave.
13:28:51 [jjc2]
some people have not paid ... (scribe decides not to minute who!)
13:30:22 [jjc2]
Agenda review: Ian
13:30:37 [jjc2]
Thurs am - discussion candidate FPWD docs
13:31:13 [jjc2]
Thurs pm - roadmap
13:31:17 [jjc2]
and timeline
13:31:30 [jjc2]
Thurs pm - 2nd session - OWL 1.1 Full
13:32:09 [jjc2]
Fri am 1 - RDF mapping
13:32:21 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl
13:32:30 [jjc2]
some of these issues have been roadblocks
13:32:36 [jjc2]
Fri am 2 other issues
13:32:46 [jjc2]
Fri pm TF reports
13:33:02 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
13:33:22 [jjc2]
Jeremy: 18.00 is a late end time
13:33:29 [jjc2]
Ian: who needs to leave before
13:33:32 [jjc2]
JimBao 4pm
13:33:35 [jjc2]
Peter 5.45
13:33:42 [jjc2]
Joanne 5
13:34:30 [jjc2]
Ian: will try to adjust agenda to finish by 4.30
13:34:57 [jjc2]
First session begins
13:35:06 [jjc2]
Agendum: Publication Schedule
13:35:23 [jjc2]
Ian - straw poll on each doc - are we ready to publish?
13:35:39 [jjc2]
Alan: expectations for publication
13:35:48 [jjc2]
goal is to get current work out for review
13:35:52 [jjc2]
do not have to be complete
13:36:01 [jjc2]
it is common to have a mark - this is incomplete
13:36:18 [jjc2]
judgement is: is it harmful to publish this - it is good to get things out as quick as possible
13:36:44 [jjc2]
poll is with the sort of editorial changes we migth expect over the next couple of days can we publish tuesday?
13:37:43 [jjc2]
deb: what changes should we be expecting before we vote in straw poll
13:37:56 [jjc2]
sandro: vote expecting your small reasonable changes to have been made
13:38:36 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Primer on Apr 8?
13:38:37 [jjc2]
Prime, given some editorial changes to be decided made in the next coupleo f days are we ready to publish as a FPWD on April 8th
13:38:48 [sandro]
+1
13:38:50 [bmotik]
+1
13:38:50 [uli_]
+1
13:38:52 [evrensirin]
+1
13:38:53 [pfps]
+1 to publish primer
13:38:53 [bijan]
+1
13:39:06 [jjc2]
lots of hands in favour
13:39:27 [jjc2]
deborah no
13:39:27 [bercuencagrau]
bercuencagrau has joined #owl
13:39:38 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish Fragments on Apr 8?
13:39:40 [jjc2]
several abstentions
13:39:56 [jjc2]
more lots in favour
13:40:13 [jjc2]
none against
13:40:16 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Given some editorial changes that we might determine in this meeting, to be made in the next couple of days, would you agree to publish XML Serialization on Apr 8?
13:40:59 [jjc2]
lots in favour
13:41:29 [jjc2]
none against
13:41:42 [jjc2]
side comment about relax ng ... ignored
13:42:12 [jjc2]
Ian: we will go in reverse order of contention, start with fragments
13:42:22 [jjc2]
Sandro: are we going to publish other docs?
13:42:33 [jjc2]
Ian: no - we discussed at telecon and decided against.
13:44:01 [sandro]
JJC: I had few MUST fix editorial changes, and the one has been fixed, but there are weaknesses I would like fixed. 1: the name. 2: abstract and intro are quite poor (an obstacle to decent review by the public). 3: I would really like a comment that we haven't discussion, on OWL-R, ... it's currently phrased that...
13:44:30 [sandro]
JJC: It should be: OWL-R implementations CAN provide OWL-Full entailments. The document doesn't say that.
13:45:58 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
13:46:17 [sandro]
ACTION: Jeremy to RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE.
13:46:17 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-117 - RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments as EDITORIAL NOTE. [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2008-04-10].
13:48:24 [sandro]
ACTION: Carston to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
13:48:24 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Carston
13:48:30 [sandro]
ACTION: Carsten to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
13:48:30 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Carsten
13:48:49 [sandro]
ACTION: carsten to draft intro text for Fragments given high-level motivation, and add it into draft, as per his OWLED presentation
13:48:49 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - carsten
13:49:14 [jjc2]
Achille: range has been added to ?? fragment
13:49:28 [jjc2]
Achile: as a result we don't have the right restrictions
13:49:50 [jjc2]
Carsten: regarding EL we have a few glitches that lead to intractibility
13:50:11 [jjc2]
Carsten: these are simple errors (editorial)
13:50:26 [jjc2]
Boris: there is a note in doc that these will change
13:51:01 [jjc2]
Carsten: I could make these changes quickly
13:51:11 [jjc2]
Achile: we could also update references
13:51:14 [pfps]
+1 to having carsten making change
13:51:20 [jjc2]
Ian: are we happy to carsten to make these changes
13:51:31 [jjc2]
Sandro: I would like someone else to review Carsten's changes
13:51:38 [jjc2]
Ian: there are others who can
13:51:51 [sandro]
ACTION: Carsten remove features that cause intractable in EL++
13:51:51 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Carsten
13:52:01 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to review Carsten's change
13:52:01 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-118 - Review Carsten's change [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
13:52:15 [sandro]
ACTION: Bernardo to review Carsten's charge
13:52:15 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-119 - Review Carsten's charge [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].
13:52:22 [jjc2]
(abpve discussion was regarding EL++ fragment)
13:52:43 [jjc2]
Deb: we should mention OWL Lite
13:53:13 [jjc2]
Jeremy: I would like to say "OWL Lite is deprecated", pfps agrees
13:53:33 [sandro]
"HJow we are going to document OWL Lite is not yet determined by the WG"
13:53:38 [jjc2]
Alan: we could add editorial comment: "We haven;t decided what to say about OWL Lite"
13:53:40 [sandro]
from Alan.
13:54:11 [sandro]
Deb: I don't want the people using OWL Lite to think they made a mistake
13:54:35 [sandro]
Alan: Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies
13:54:47 [jjc2]
We all agreed on a sentence ...
13:54:51 [jjc2]
that sentence
13:55:05 [sandro]
ACTION: Alan to add sentence "Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies" to Fragments
13:55:05 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-120 - Add sentence \"Although we don't specifically document OWL lite in this document, it is the intention of the WG that all OWL Lite ontologiies witll be OWL 1.1 DL ontologies\" to Fragments [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
13:55:41 [sandro]
m_schnei: let's make a WG note which snapshots OWL Lite as in 2004.
13:56:06 [sandro]
Alan: let's postpone this; eg we may deprecate it.
13:57:12 [jjc2]
see ISSUE-107
13:57:15 [sandro]
ACTION: m_schnei to RAISE issue about how to refer to OWL Lite as a stable standard
13:57:15 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - m_schnei
13:57:40 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
13:57:49 [sandro]
related to ISSUE-107
13:58:25 [jjc2]
the name of the document.....
13:59:01 [jjc2]
Fragments: peter, boris ...
13:59:29 [jjc2]
Alan: Ivan requested "profile" as W3C practice as recommended by QA group
13:59:58 [sandro]
14:00:12 [jjc2]
joanne: we should give justification for name in document
14:00:18 [sandro]
14:00:33 [jjc2]
joanne: I personally found the name 'fragments' confusing
14:00:39 [m_schnei]
sandro, is there any precedence of a w3c rec for which "profiles" exist
14:00:55 [jjc2]
proposal for profiles; seconded jjc
14:01:12 [jjc2]
Ian: will nayone speak against? Pfps holds nose.
14:01:44 [jjc2]
Bijan: is OWL Full a profile?
14:01:58 [jjc2]
Bijan: are we only using 'profile' for fragment
14:02:10 [jjc2]
Bernardo: reads wikipedia defn
14:02:28 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:02:28 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:02:29 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
14:02:30 [Zakim]
+Ivan
14:02:31 [m_schnei]
thanks ivan for example "SVG"
14:03:00 [ivan]
to m_schnei : yes, SVG
14:03:09 [sandro]
ivan, the room is not dailed in yet ... I'll wait until we have a little pause in the argument.
14:03:45 [m_schnei]
i am very indifferent about name, but people use word "fragments" for quite a while now
14:03:58 [jjc2]
discussion of whether to raise this is an issue ....
14:04:17 [sandro]
Ian: "In logic, these are often called 'fragments'"
14:04:31 [jjc2]
bernardo: can the word fragments be used in the intro
14:04:45 [jjc2]
jeremy and ian: yes if in the context of logic
14:04:47 [sandro]
to define "profile" link to
14:05:25 [jjc2]
alan: the editorial change will be to leave one use of fragment in the intro
14:05:42 [jjc2]
alan: and to use the word profile instead of fragment throughout
14:07:10 [sandro]
PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title is ....@@@
14:07:16 [jjc2]
ian: all docs are called OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language: ...
14:07:31 [sandro]
PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
14:07:32 [jjc2]
ian: suggests just "Profiles" for the rest of the name
14:07:43 [jjc2]
jeremy: there was a nice adjective from Sandro
14:08:10 [jjc2]
sandro: but I've forgotten
14:08:10 [sandro]
JLUCIANO: somehow have the title evocative of Fragments.
14:09:52 [sandro]
"Subsetting Profiles"
14:10:18 [jjc2]
strawpoll: doc title is "profiles"
14:10:20 [sandro]
PROPOSED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
14:10:26 [jjc2]
carsten is against other people in favour
14:10:37 [sandro]
Carsten: really, "subset" is a much better word.
14:11:09 [alanr]
I like "subset" too, but I like a happy W3C better
14:11:19 [sandro]
+1
14:11:20 [bijan]
+1
14:11:21 [pfps]
+1 for profiles (but holding my nose)
14:11:21 [alanr]
+1
14:11:24 [IanH]
+1
14:11:25 [MarkusK]
+1
14:11:26 [bmotik]
+1
14:11:27 [evrensirin]
+1
14:11:27 [Rinke]
+!
14:11:27 [bercuencagrau]
+1
14:11:35 [ekw]
+1 for profiles
14:11:38 [Zhe]
+1
14:11:40 [msmith]
+1
14:11:42 [Rinke]
obviously meant +1
14:11:44 [dlm]
0
14:11:50 [jjc2]
+1
14:12:07 [alanr]
carsten: 0
14:12:08 [JLUCIANO]
"subset" is a better word
14:12:20 [sandro]
RESOLVED: we use the word "profile" instead of "fragment" throughout what has been called Fragments, with a reference to logic fragments, and explanation of the term "profiles"; and the title for now is "[OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language] Profiles"
14:12:37 [JLUCIANO]
+1 profile in this context is correct
14:13:03 [m_schnei]
why not first let people get accoustomed to this new name (forgotten ;-)) and then vote later officially
14:13:49 [jjc2]
(Bijan notes that a formal vote should be by organization, but this is not an issue for unopposed resolution)
14:14:31 [sandro]
ACTION: bercuencagrau implement change of fragments -> profiles
14:14:31 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bercuencagrau
14:14:36 [sandro]
ACTION: bcuencagrau implement change of fragments -> profiles
14:14:36 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - bcuencagrau
14:14:42 [sandro]
ACTION: bernardo implement change of fragments -> profiles
14:14:43 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-121 - Implement change of fragments -> profiles [on Bernardo Cuenca Grau - due 2008-04-10].
14:15:42 [jjc2]
zhe: would like to reorganize OWL-R section to get rules first
14:15:58 [jjc2]
ian: do we need to do this for FPWD?
14:16:09 [jjc2]
zhe: no, an editorial to do note is OK.
14:17:26 [jjc2]
alan: a note should be added that the names of the profiles are not stable
14:17:31 [sandro]
ACTION: Alan to RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document.
14:17:31 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-122 - RAISE issue on picking good Names for Profiles AND link to this issue from Profiles document. [on Alan Ruttenberg - due 2008-04-10].
14:18:36 [sandro]
Zhe: I can just add a reviewers comment.
14:18:40 [m_schnei]
zhe can create a branch version of the fragments (oops) document in the Wiki
14:18:55 [sandro]
Uli: Flowers around document?
14:19:19 [sandro]
Alan: Everyone is happy that the reviewer comments are on the wiki but NOT in publication.
14:20:53 [jjc2]
Sandro: actually reviewers comments have been in, but invisible by CSS
14:21:07 [jjc2]
we could have a switch
14:21:14 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off.
14:21:25 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.
14:21:32 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Let the TR actually keep the (yellow) wg-review-notes, with a switch to turn them on, default to off --- subject to W3C PubRules.
14:22:37 [pfps]
+1 to publish Fragments (Alcatel-Lucent)
14:22:48 [bercuencagrau]
+1 (Oxford)
14:23:00 [Rinke]
+1 (Amsterdam)
14:23:03 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.
14:23:03 [dlm]
+1 publish fragments RPI
14:23:17 [bmotik]
+1
14:23:18 [MarkusK]
+1 (FZI)
14:23:18 [Zhe]
+1
14:23:18 [jjc2]
+1 (HP)
14:23:25 [msmith]
+1 (Clark & Parsia)
14:23:27 [sandro]
Achille: +1 (IBM)
14:23:30 [IanH]
+1 (Oxford)
14:23:31 [alanr]
+1 publish profiles (science commons)
14:23:33 [bijan]
+1 to publish profiles (Manchester)
14:23:40 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
14:23:44 [sandro]
+1 to publish Profiles (W3C)
14:23:55 [dlm]
i meant profiles for the vote for rpi
14:24:21 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.
14:24:58 [jjc2]
Thanks and applause to authors
14:25:26 [sandro]
yes m_schnei :-)
14:25:30 [jjc2]
XML Serialization
14:26:10 [jjc2]
Sandro: we need to have an issue about the namespace, an editorial note
14:27:21 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document.
14:27:21 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-123 - RAISE issue on namespaces (if necessary) and link to it from document. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
14:27:39 [jjc2]
chairs will accept issues raised as a result of actions in this meeting
14:28:36 [jjc2]
Bijan and jeremy: there is a separate issue about the OWL 1.1 namespace, this is different from the syntax namespace
14:28:54 [jjc2]
bernardo: there is a reference to 'fragments' in this doc
14:29:12 [sandro]
Bijan to clean up word "fragments" in this document and others.
14:30:19 [jjc2]
alan: won't the data-object property punning issue tomorrow impact these docs?
14:30:31 [jjc2]
jeremy: yes - but let's decide tomorrow
14:30:57 [sandro]
Bijan: If you see a typo, just fix it in the wiki ASAP.
14:31:01 [jjc2]
bijan: fix typos when you see them
14:31:20 [jjc2]
rinke: ??? section 2 is confusing
14:31:33 [jjc2]
rinke: this should either be exhaustive or non-existent
14:32:11 [jjc2]
evren: assuming functional syntax is normative are we expecting a mapping from XML syntax to functional syntax
14:32:25 [jjc2]
bijan: there is a couple of sentences that describe
14:32:32 [thomassch_]
thomassch_ has joined #owl
14:32:39 [jjc2]
ian: two issues: a) examples b) mapping should be explicit
14:33:00 [jjc2]
sandro: a complete example would be silly
14:33:00 [Zakim]
-Ivan
14:33:02 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
14:33:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ivan
14:33:10 [jjc2]
sandro: but a small example is helpful
14:33:39 [jjc2]
alan: the example should be a repeat of some other example
14:33:48 [m_schnei]
+1 to sandro on small and useful examples instead of heaving a "complete" example
14:33:56 [jjc2]
bijan: we could have pointer to the primer
14:34:02 [jjc2]
sandro: I would be happy with this
14:34:09 [uli__]
uli__ has joined #owl
14:34:16 [jjc2]
bernardo: so the only doc with examples would be the primer
14:34:21 [jjc2]
bijan: I like that
14:34:39 [jjc2]
lots of positive noises about this idea to examples
14:34:45 [sandro]
Sandro: Yes! Let's have the examples in XML_Serialization just be tabs in Primer and Syntax.
14:34:58 [jjc2]
strawpoll: kill example section replaced with pointers to primer
14:35:52 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.
14:36:03 [jjc2]
michael: the examples are not the same, it doesn't make sense to copy it
14:36:15 [jjc2]
ian: no the proposal is not to move the example but to delete it
14:36:29 [alanr]
Sandro: Add query parameter to set default syntax for primer?
14:36:50 [jjc2]
joanne: do the examples in the primer illustrate the right things?
14:37:14 [sandro]
s/Sandro:/Sandro,/
14:37:43 [m_schnei]
jj2, i did not say "copy" but "move", but ian said "kill" :-)
14:38:21 [sandro]
bercuencagrau: Section 1 Overview -- ending with link to Primer; Section 2 Schema
14:38:24 [jjc2]
Alan would like the link from serialization to primer to automagically come up in the right syntax
14:38:33 [jjc2]
Alan claims this cna be done in javascript
14:39:18 [jjc2]
Alan: the schema referred to in this doc needs to be accessible from this doc
14:39:37 [jjc2]
Ian: points out that Alan is out of order
14:39:54 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: We remove the examples section and just refer people to Primer, where they can use the XML tab to see examples.
14:40:31 [bmotik]
+1
14:40:31 [pfps]
+1 to excise examples and put in pointer to Primer
14:40:33 [Rinke]
+1
14:40:34 [sandro]
+1
14:40:36 [bercuencagrau]
+1
14:40:37 [msmith]
+1
14:40:43 [Zhe]
+1
14:40:48 [m_schnei]
+1 to drop examples (provided that this is our general approach)
14:40:49 [jjc2]
lots in favour
14:41:27 [sandro]
Achille: 0 but we should make the mapping more explicit
14:41:28 [jjc2]
Achille: I liked this example - relationship to mapping - hence I abstain
14:41:32 [alanr]
+1
14:42:21 [sandro]
+1 to having a small, complete example in XML_Serialization
14:42:37 [jjc2]
Achille: also the namespace stuff, schemalocation etc, may be absent in primer
14:43:44 [jjc2]
Bijan: but the primer may do these....
14:43:58 [sandro]
+1 Hello World, in XML_Serialization
14:44:08 [baojie]
agree with sandro, a small example in XML_Serialization, a longer example in Primer
14:44:20 [jjc2]
Joanne: I feel this is important
14:45:14 [jjc2]
Jeremy: let's add a to-do
14:45:23 [jjc2]
Ian: let's put helloworld example in intro
14:46:08 [m_schnei]
<Ontology name="HelloWorld"/> ;-)
14:46:43 [sandro]
m_schnei :)
14:46:50 [jjc2]
Boris and Ian talk about mapping
14:47:45 [jjc2]
Achille: jeremy's proposal doesn't address mappings, but is otherwise OK
14:47:50 [jjc2]
Ian: mappings is next
14:47:58 [sandro]
PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro
14:48:27 [sandro]
PROPOSED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)
14:49:20 [sandro]
(RESOLVED silently, Bijan making change, as we move on....)
14:50:09 [sandro]
RESOLVED: delete current example, add pointer to primer, and have Hello World in Intro (eg bicycle subclassof vehicle)
14:50:26 [sandro]
(by show of hands)
14:50:37 [sandro]
come back to issue of mapping, after break.
15:02:37 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
15:04:52 [thomassch_]
thomassch_ has joined #owl
15:08:03 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
15:08:10 [alanr]
Action: Sandro make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the "separate document" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page
15:08:10 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-124 - Make sure that namespaces work right in the hello world example, and that the \"separate document\" link goes to the schema rather than the wiki page [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].
15:10:46 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
15:15:11 [thomassch_]
thomassch_ has joined #owl
15:18:16 [sandro]
scribenick: m_schnei
15:18:55 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
15:19:15 [m_schnei]
Continuing on "Publication Schedule"
15:19:52 [m_schnei]
alanr: next point is question about xml mapping
15:21:10 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
15:22:33 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #owl
15:22:33 [m_schnei]
bijan: suggests to add not "mapping should be enhanced"
15:23:56 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
15:24:22 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
15:24:25 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
15:24:50 [alanr]
+1 (science commons)
15:24:53 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
15:24:54 [msmith]
+1 (Clark & Parsia)
15:24:56 [pfps]
+1 to publish XML Serialization
15:24:56 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
15:24:58 [bijan]
+1 to publish XML syntax (Manchester)
15:24:59 [dlm]
+1 (RPI)
15:24:59 [IanH]
+1 (Oxford)
15:25:00 [bercuencagrau]
+1 (Oxford Univ)
15:25:01 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
15:25:03 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
15:25:19 [zwu2]
+1 (ORACLE)
15:25:32 [m_schnei]
jeremy: asks about GRDDL
15:25:41 [Rinke]
+1 (Amsterdam)
15:26:06 [sandro]
Bijan is putting in the ed-note linke to ISSUE-97 now.
15:26:09 [m_schnei]
jeremy: we have already an issue on this
15:26:10 [sandro]
(for Jeremy)
15:26:17 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish "XML Serialization" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
15:26:21 [jjc]
+1 (HP with GRDDL change)
15:26:32 [sandro]
(GRDDL == ISSUE-97)
15:26:37 [sandro]
Topic: Primer
15:26:38 [m_schnei]
alanr: next point is primer
15:26:54 [m_schnei]
alanr: what needs to be changed before vote to publish?
15:27:27 [m_schnei]
deb: what plans exist for the primer to be still to be done
15:28:31 [m_schnei]
bijan: explains list of things he wants to do (scribe did not get all the points)
15:30:18 [m_schnei]
discussion about whether deb's issues should be only marked as editorial
15:33:18 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
15:33:32 [sandro]
alan: something vaguely like: "The WG is committed to making these domain-specific sections be accessible by professional in the industry. We particularly solicit comments on whether this is the case"
15:34:11 [IanH_]
IanH_ has joined #owl
15:34:12 [sandro]
jjc: Deb, I think you're asking Bijan to reach too-high a bar at this point.
15:37:05 [sandro]
Zhe: I want diagrams, please. :-)
15:37:11 [m_schnei]
zhe: likes this whole document, but has problems with the database section
15:37:28 [sandro]
Zhe: I don't agree with the point about "concrete" in the database section.
15:37:48 [m_schnei]
zhe: disagrees with that database stuff is the most distinguishing point
15:38:13 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
15:38:25 [evrensirin]
s/concrete/complete
15:39:06 [sandro]
Sandro: I wonder about a particularly humble editor's note about how we can't possibly understand all the technical backgrounds people are coming from.
15:39:39 [sandro]
Jae: (1) More concete examples
15:39:40 [m_schnei]
jie: concern that primer is not ok for every one
15:39:50 [Rinke]
I think Zhe rather said that 'completeness' is the most distinguishing point between database and owl -approaches
15:40:57 [m_schnei]
alanr: asks for suggestion for concrete words to put as editorial note
15:40:58 [cgi-irc]
point 1: more concrete examples
15:41:15 [m_schnei]
bijan: hates database section because he things its wrong
15:41:16 [dlm]
scribe assist from dlm - my goal is to bring more people in to the document and reduce alienation from communities. One section in particular, the db section, i believe may not capture why db researchers may come to owl and it may be likely to be confusing.
15:41:22 [sandro]
cgi-irc is Jae
15:41:24 [cgi-irc]
point 2: make clear the diff between OWL 1.0. and OWL 1.1
15:41:59 [sandro]
s/Jae/Jie/
15:42:09 [m_schnei]
bijan: still several months of work for the primer to do
15:43:58 [m_schnei]
sandro: normally there is a sentence "please comment" in the beginning of a WD, perhaps there should be more of these in the documents
15:44:14 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to draft the "humble" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer
15:44:14 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-125 - Draft the \"humble\" editor's note / SOTD request for comments for Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
15:45:30 [m_schnei]
alanr: option: remove the offending sentence from the database section?
15:46:23 [m_schnei]
alanr: option2: remove complete database section?
15:47:40 [m_schnei]
straw poll on remove paragraph: 15 people
15:48:03 [m_schnei]
straw poll on remove whole database section: much less votes
15:50:54 [m_schnei]
alanr: jie should put his points into document as note
15:52:25 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer
15:52:25 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-126 - Add a from-community section for OWL 1.0 users, to Primer [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
15:52:34 [m_schnei]
bijan: (to deb) primer is for non-DL people
15:53:07 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
15:53:32 [jjc]
It is this embracing of incompleteness that most distinguishes OWL from databases, driving the different capabilities of OWL and databases.
15:53:49 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."
15:53:57 [alanr]
+1
15:53:58 [sandro]
0 no opinion
15:53:58 [Achille]
0
15:54:02 [Rinke]
+1
15:54:03 [dlm]
+1
15:54:06 [zwu2]
+1 (ORACLE)
15:54:11 [jjc]
0 (I think the WG is micromanaging)
15:54:29 [pfps]
0
15:54:32 [IanH_]
0 (Oxford)
15:54:33 [bcuencagrau]
0
15:54:34 [bmotik]
0
15:54:35 [baojie]
0
15:54:35 [msmith]
+1
15:54:37 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
15:54:37 [MarkusK]
0
15:54:42 [pfps]
0 (and agree with jeremy :-)
15:54:42 [m_schnei]
peter: asks about why the whole paragraph should be removed instead of a single sentence
15:55:13 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Removing the paragraph from Primer beginning "It is this embracing of incompleteness..."
15:55:18 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
15:55:23 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Publish "Primer" on or soon after Apr 8, given the changes agreed to so far this meeting.
15:55:25 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
15:55:34 [m_schnei]
deb: does someone has a list of intended changes?
15:55:48 [sandro]
Elisa, the room hasn't called in yet. Hold on and we'll do that in a minute.
15:56:00 [Elisa]
thanks :)
15:56:01 [alanr]
Action: Deb to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
15:56:01 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Deb
15:56:07 [jjc]
+1 (HP)
15:56:18 [msmith]
+1 to publish (C&P)
15:56:20 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
15:56:21 [Rinke]
+1 (Amsterdam)
15:56:22 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
15:56:23 [zwu2]
+1 (ORACLE)
15:56:24 [dlm]
dlm will review the primer+editorial changes after bijan does them
15:56:36 [MarkusK]
+1 (FZI)
15:56:37 [pfps]
+1 to publish Primer (Alcatel-Lucent)
15:56:41 [IanH_]
Action: dlm to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
15:56:41 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - dlm
15:56:43 [uli__]
+1 (Manchester)
15:56:44 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
15:56:59 [IanH_]
Action: Deborah to review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them
15:56:59 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-127 - Review primer+editorial changes after Bijan is done making them [on Deborah McGuinness - due 2008-04-10].
15:57:06 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
15:57:08 [Achille]
+1 (iBM)
15:57:10 [dlm]
+1 with updates RPI
15:57:40 [m_schnei]
alanr congratulates authors and wg
15:58:22 [sandro]
sandro: congrats to chairs for getting us done an hour early?
15:59:02 [msmith]
scribenick: msmith
15:59:21 [msmith]
topic: OWL 1.1 Full Semantics Issues
16:02:03 [msmith]
topic: Roadmap and design principles
16:03:33 [sandro]
Elisa, we've almost got it.
16:03:35 [sandro]
I think.
16:03:46 [sandro]
(we're on breaking trying to figure out the phone.)
16:04:04 [sandro]
Zakim, what is the code?
16:04:04 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sandro
16:04:56 [sandro]
[[ "5 minute break" to get phone working. ]]
16:05:21 [ekw]
Elisa we finished with Publication Schedule
16:05:38 [Zakim]
+??P14
16:05:55 [sandro]
??P14 is Meeting_Room
16:05:59 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P14 is Meeting_Room
16:05:59 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
16:07:15 [sandro]
Elisa, can you hear people chattering?
16:07:25 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:07:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Meeting_Room
16:07:27 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
16:07:45 [sandro]
cgi-irc, please change your nick
16:08:00 [cgi-irc]
nick jie
16:08:09 [sandro]
you need the leading slash....
16:08:19 [sandro]
we're actually still on break.
16:09:32 [sandro]
Elisa? Could you hear anything there?
16:09:47 [jjc]
the meeting is restarting.
16:09:47 [sandro]
This is about as good as it's going to get, I think.
16:10:09 [msmith]
alanr: we will start with review of timeline
16:10:35 [msmith]
16:11:02 [msmith]
topic: review of timeline
16:11:14 [bijan]
BTW, XML Syntax is updated per my actions:
16:11:28 [sandro]
splendid, Bijan. :)
16:11:29 [msmith]
alanr: in one view, there is much work to be done and that could prevent add'l items
16:11:31 [bijan]
Pls review
16:11:56 [msmith]
...do we want to commit to this schedule and drop other things. lets open for discussion
16:12:40 [msmith]
m_schnei: we're making a lot of progress and shouldn't be constrained by a schedule set up front
16:12:49 [msmith]
alanr: example of something that might not be done?
16:13:06 [msmith]
m_schnei: its too early to do so, that's my point
16:13:24 [msmith]
...our previous perception of timing has been incorrect
16:13:51 [msmith]
jjc: 6 months ago, rdf mapping was better than it is now, that suggests several more months are needed
16:14:03 [msmith]
bijan: not all docs must march together
16:15:47 [msmith]
...I care about all features and have been expanding all the add'l proposals. I/Manchester is not ready to compromise on them.
16:16:14 [msmith]
ianh: I agree with Bijan. Do we need everything to go to last call at the same time?
16:16:48 [msmith]
pfps: rdf mapping is not progressing b/c there are philosophical differences
16:17:24 [msmith]
... what are the philosophical differences? In 1.0 WG, once such issues were resolved, things could be very fast
16:17:43 [msmith]
sandro: to bijan, owl 1.2 is possible, this wg could continue for 10 years
16:17:59 [msmith]
...no promises, etc.
16:18:34 [msmith]
...this supports sticking to the current timeline, moving other issues to 1.2
16:19:21 [msmith]
jjc: in general, hp prefers longer gaps before versions. our target audience needs a perception of stability, and sandro's proposal undermines that
16:19:51 [msmith]
...suggest looking at charter to determine what must be at last call when
16:20:10 [msmith]
...I would personally vote against last call without rqmts doc
16:20:31 [msmith]
...it makes sense to do a cluster of docs together
16:21:26 [msmith]
pfps: HPs desire, of slowness, seems antithetical to Web and W3. i.e., we often hear of web years being 3-4 months
16:21:46 [msmith]
jjc: I think I would have difficulty selling sandro's proposal to colleagues
16:22:09 [msmith]
ianh: to pfps on philosophical, I don't see such big philosophical differences
16:23:04 [msmith]
...on rqmts, yes we need such a doc, but note such rqmts have been gathered, just not pushed into a doc
16:23:28 [msmith]
bijan: agree with ianh on rqmts being gathered
16:23:56 [msmith]
alanr: on user facing docs, we're in good shape on what were the big issues
16:24:07 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
16:24:34 [msmith]
...a 1-2 pg quick start guide is part of this
16:24:58 [msmith]
...(scribe missed first of two things)
16:25:15 [msmith]
...I haven't heard other major problems in this area
16:25:44 [msmith]
...(review of charter wording and deliverables and current status)
16:26:15 [msmith]
...we're in good shape, but new features are outside and not r'qed by charter
16:26:28 [msmith]
...we need to be ready to slip schedule or drop these features
16:26:45 [msmith]
...anyone disagree on this characterization?
16:27:04 [msmith]
jjc: on test suite, we need something by last call
16:27:14 [msmith]
alanr: I agree
16:27:27 [kendall]
kendall has joined #owl
16:27:35 [msmith]
jjc: you can't exit CR without test suite
16:28:31 [msmith]
alanr: sandro noted slack in timeline, 3 months for dealing with feedback
16:29:02 [msmith]
bijan: CR on timeline is generous b/c we have tracking implementations of the features
16:29:27 [msmith]
jjc: paperwork types will take some time
16:29:46 [msmith]
sandro: if implementations are tracking, we don't need CR at all
16:30:34 [msmith]
alanr: more feedback on features vs. time
16:30:40 [msmith]
...?
16:31:08 [kendall]
achille: stay on track, don't slip for non-charter features
16:31:10 [msmith]
achille: keep on timeline, not add new features
16:31:45 [msmith]
zhe: agree with achille, note that vendors have to set a timeline
16:32:29 [msmith]
bijan: not all the "slip" features weren't on the charter
16:32:59 [msmith]
ianh: jeremy voiced hp concern on version numbers, how about IBM and Oracle
16:33:49 [msmith]
achille: I think the point is valid and think IBM might agree with HP
16:34:15 [msmith]
zhe: I agree
16:34:45 [msmith]
jluciano: provides example when sticking to timeline for sake of timeline has resulted in poor product
16:34:49 [kendall]
kendall has joined #owl
16:35:20 [msmith]
sandro: if 1.2 option is off the table, schedule takes priority over features
16:35:45 [msmith]
achille: clarification, would 1.2 mean new charter, new WG
16:36:02 [msmith]
sandro: no. this group would work in multiple phases
16:36:32 [msmith]
achille: that would be an issue, an ongoing commitment like that
16:36:37 [msmith]
jjc: its per feature
16:36:42 [msmith]
...nary i don't like
16:36:49 [msmith]
...easy keys sound good
16:37:38 [msmith]
...annotation spaces less clear, can be easily persuaded
16:38:02 [msmith]
bijan: the new features are useful, this shouldn't be so absolute
16:38:21 [msmith]
alanr: (scribe missed)
16:38:34 [msmith]
m_schnei: examples of impact
16:38:48 [alanr]
If we do a 1.2, then I want to start it immediately after we release last call of 1.1
16:39:29 [msmith]
... if only semantics is broken it can be fixed, but rdf mapping is broken in a way that impacts owl-full, it can never be fixed
16:40:33 [msmith]
rinke: some features are more important than others, that's obvious. we shouldn't confuse these things
16:40:55 [msmith]
...on 3 features, annotation is most important
16:41:13 [msmith]
jjc: hp is not expecting wg to meet timeline, I can't argue in favor of timeline
16:41:31 [msmith]
achille: I agree with rinke, not everything is equally important.
16:42:11 [msmith]
...slipping for 2-3 months is ok, longer commitment (e.g., 1.2 or another year) is a bigger issue, particularly if for non-essential features
16:42:58 [msmith]
...on 3 features, nary > annotation > easy keys
16:43:24 [msmith]
zhe: if 1.2 is on table, what's the timeline?
16:43:46 [msmith]
alanr: charter schedule is last call at 10 months, 1.2 would be similar
16:44:02 [msmith]
zhe: delay 2-3 mos ok, another year not ok
16:44:13 [msmith]
bijan: year not ok for me either
16:44:26 [msmith]
zhe: on 3 features, no preference
16:45:38 [msmith]
markus: 2-3 mos ok, longer not, on 3 features annotation > easy >> nary
16:46:09 [dlm]
i propose that we collect information about relative importance of proposed additional features in a straw poll probably on the web (to keep records for counting). I could really use annotations on annotations.
16:46:16 [sandro]
alan: I hear priority 1 == what's in now, slippage of 3-4 months is okay for including nary, easykeys, annotations.
16:46:19 [msmith]
alanr: first priority is what is on table now, willingness to extend up to ~4 months for new features
16:46:42 [sandro]
Topic: Backward Compatibility
16:46:45 [m_schnei]
well running projects do not need deadlines :)
16:47:00 [msmith]
topic: backwards compatibility goals
16:47:37 [sandro]
Alan: this may not be the way we want to ADVERTISE b.c.
16:48:28 [msmith]
statement on table, "Take an OWL DL 1.0 ontology O, serialize it to RDF and reverse map to an OWL DL 1.1 ontology O' in functional style syntax. O and O' have the same models as defined by their respective semantics."
16:49:12 [msmith]
jjc: observation - 1.0 is in terms of abstract syntax and semantics, 1.1 is not.
16:49:23 [msmith]
ianh: the first order models are the same
16:49:34 [msmith]
ekw: this is only for DL, not full
16:49:45 [msmith]
alanr: we have no proposal w.r.t. owl full
16:50:03 [msmith]
jjc: for full, everything true in 1.0 is true in 1.1
16:50:11 [msmith]
m_schnei: wait for my presentation
16:50:24 [msmith]
bijan: can m_schnei inlcude a proposal in his presentation
16:50:27 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
16:50:52 [msmith]
pfps: what about the annotation exception
16:51:05 [msmith]
alanr: status of annotations is not resolved, we want to avoid that now
16:51:28 [msmith]
alanr: strawpoll on this defn of backwards compat for OWL DL
16:51:46 [msmith]
...see virtual unanimity
16:51:55 [msmith]
bijan: I object
16:52:47 [msmith]
...I'd prefer to allow some small tweaks that would break formal but not de facto backwards
16:52:48 [sandro]
Bijan: my issue with this defn of backward compatibility is that we may want to change some things -- specifically skolemizing bnodes.
16:52:51 [msmith]
alanr: noted
16:53:22 [sandro]
JJC: my abstain is based on ... @@
16:53:34 [msmith]
jjc: I abstained b/c I don't care, we know backwards compat when we see it. i.e., I agree with Bijan, we shouldn't prejudge some other issues
16:53:43 [msmith]
topic: issue 100
16:54:21 [msmith]
ianh: (summarizes issue 100) as should we be able to create OWL ontologies that we can't serialize as RDF
16:55:35 [msmith]
...we shouldn't have what alanr views as a bug in 1.0 (w.r.t. punning)
16:55:38 [sandro]
ian: (clarifies) this is about rdf GRAPHS, not rdf xml.
16:55:51 [sandro]
ISSUE-100
16:55:59 [msmith]
bijan: objection, same as before, I don't see need to prejudge
16:56:20 [msmith]
jjc: I agree with Bijan and think this slightly knocks the previous WG
16:56:29 [msmith]
alanr: no knocking involved
16:56:47 [sandro]
alan: I think this rises to a design principle
16:56:57 [msmith]
...I think it rises to a design principle b/c its relevant to users
16:57:53 [msmith]
alanr: a proposal was made to me to handle punning for which I didn't have grounds to object to
16:58:10 [sandro]
Peter: WebOnt had "Requirements" and "Objectives". This could be an Objective.
16:58:14 [msmith]
pfps: previous wg had objectives, as different from, rqmts
16:58:26 [msmith]
bijan: you can always object for the specific cases
16:58:59 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:59:04 [msmith]
alanr: object to personalization. I'm speaking for a community, not trying to "win"
16:59:25 [msmith]
jjc: I agree with alan's design principle, agree with bijan on wg procedure
16:59:50 [msmith]
sandro: perhaps we should record this as a use case
17:00:24 [msmith]
ianh: there was a proposal this be a "design objective"
17:00:43 [msmith]
alanr: what are our design principles, what are our rqmts
17:01:36 [msmith]
uli: this design principle could conflict with some future case we don't know about and we should prohibit that case now
17:01:54 [msmith]
jjc: this should be in a document, not an issue
17:02:08 [msmith]
sandro: having rqmts that conflict is normal
17:02:23 [msmith]
...this rqmt conflicting with a future one is ok
17:02:50 [msmith]
...I agree with jeremy on procedure
17:03:05 [msmith]
bijan: apology to alan if taken personally
17:03:30 [msmith]
...I object to future debates being resolved by appeal to a design principle
17:04:08 [msmith]
...I believe your previous perception was incorrect and that you can object to specific issues w/o such a principle
17:05:12 [msmith]
...I think there is some issue with re-opening in the future b/c alan is a chair and has more significant power w.r.t issues
17:05:43 [msmith]
ianh: adjourn for lunch
17:06:28 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
17:12:26 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:56:34 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
17:57:33 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
17:59:06 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
17:59:55 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:00:11 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
18:02:21 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
18:06:58 [msmith]
scribenick: JLUCIANO
18:07:07 [zhe]
zhe has joined #owl
18:07:07 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
18:07:11 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #owl
18:08:00 [Zakim]
-Meeting_Room
18:08:07 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
18:08:08 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
18:08:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Meeting_Room
18:08:30 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: discussing tech issues seems a good approach,
18:08:59 [JLUCIANO]
alan: round-tripping with RDF winds up with same set of modules
18:09:24 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: add one or two sentences to current doc. if it turns out to be a bug then we fix it.
18:09:45 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has now started
18:09:52 [Zakim]
+Elisa_Kendall
18:09:56 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:10:16 [JLUCIANO]
PROPOSE to close issue 100 as resolved by adding round tripping text to the mapping document
18:10:21 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
18:10:35 [dlm]
dlm has joined #owl
18:10:35 [sandro]
+1
18:10:36 [jjc]
jeremy proposed
18:10:36 [Achille]
+1
18:10:37 [bmotik]
+1
18:10:38 [Rinke]
+1
18:10:40 [baojie]
+1
18:10:49 [IanH_]
+1
18:10:49 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
18:10:51 [pfps]
+1
18:10:56 [bijan]
+1
18:10:57 [MarkusK]
+1
18:11:04 [JLUCIANO]
+1
18:11:07 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:11:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall
18:11:07 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
18:11:11 [Elisa]
+1
18:11:13 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
18:11:18 [dlm]
waiting for reposting of proposal
18:11:27 [uli__]
?
18:11:32 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
18:11:39 [dlm]
+1 dlm (RPI)
18:11:41 [bmotik]
+1
18:11:42 [alanr]
+1 (science commons)
18:11:44 [bcuencagrau]
+1
18:11:46 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
18:11:54 [JLUCIANO]
+9 (MITRE)
18:12:01 [Zhe]
+1
18:12:03 [JLUCIANO]
OOPS! +1 (MITRE)
18:12:09 [IanH_]
+1
18:12:13 [msmith]
+1
18:12:21 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:12:30 [ekw]
+1
18:12:32 [uli__]
+1 (Manchester)
18:12:55 [pfps]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-100 as resolved by adding roundtripping text to the RDF Mapping document.
18:12:56 [sandro]
zakim, dial owlf2f
18:12:56 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; the call is being made
18:12:58 [Zakim]
+Owlf2f
18:13:21 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
18:14:02 [JLUCIANO]
Language Name
18:14:19 [JLUCIANO]
PROPOSED: by Alan Call our product OWL 1.1
18:14:24 [kendall]
and in press releases :)
18:14:32 [JLUCIANO]
SECOND: Bijan
18:15:49 [Zakim]
-Owlf2f
18:15:53 [kendall]
there's some marketing appeal to "OWL 2.0", fwiw
18:16:02 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:16:10 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: from some previous WWC doc, a point release should be minor shift, this seems more like a major shift and suggests OWL 2.0
18:16:17 [sandro]
Elisa, I'm baffled. :-/
18:16:18 [dlm]
bijan is stating your point elisa - do you want to speak?
18:16:56 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: Elisa suggests 2.0 because changes in structuarl syntax affects the UML form that perspective
18:17:00 [Elisa]
I think we should seriously consider "2.0", given the change in functional syntax.
18:17:05 [JLUCIANO]
Evan: agrees from tha tperspective
18:18:06 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: Concern about backwards compability that may not hold for 2.0
18:18:22 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
18:19:04 [sandro]
zakim, what is the code?
18:19:04 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), sandro
18:19:22 [JLUCIANO]
Michael: personal feeling - most docs start with OWL 1.1, few but useful features
18:20:31 [Elisa]
Unless we simplify the functional/structural syntax/BNF to be closer to OWL 1.0, though, we at OMG would disagree with that position
18:20:38 [JLUCIANO]
Achille: Not much opinion on Name, IBM doesn't care, but concerned that will adding more will delay and prolong the process
18:20:55 [JLUCIANO]
Michael: no new stuff, what we have now is a big change
18:21:53 [JLUCIANO]
Zhe: From Oracle, Oracle produces database, OWL 2.0 form marketing pt of view implies new features and supports it
18:22:37 [Zakim]
+??P14
18:22:37 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: Keeping OMG in mind, regardless of naming issues, the fact that we're changing it from their perspective we need to listen and understand more
18:22:52 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P14 is Meeting_Room
18:22:52 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
18:23:28 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: Stability vs change, refers back to previous discussion about small vs big changes, and perceptions
18:23:57 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: not a big change
18:24:35 [jie]
jie has joined #owl
18:24:38 [JLUCIANO]
Evran: from tool dev perspective, this doesn't feel like a big change. Pellet version change was just called 1.4 which included many other changes.
18:25:17 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: what would clinch this decision are there other major changes in mind for the future?
18:25:50 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: Had sorted by his thoughts about the size of change, suggests going back and looking at what he thought then
18:26:20 [sandro]
Jeremy: owl1.1 changes api, so that's big
18:26:54 [JLUCIANO]
Alan: Agrees that changes API is big, though he's not done that
18:26:58 [sandro]
alan: owl api change means I have to change my code.
18:28:01 [bcuencag2]
bcuencag2 has joined #owl
18:28:22 [bmotik]
I've implemented the resolution of ISSUE-100 and have added a note about this to the issue. Here is the diff:
18:28:42 [JLUCIANO]
Matt Horridge: re: OWL API were needed anyway, i.e. for OWL 1.1 and could have put them in previous version
18:28:51 [sandro]
sandro: How could we ever have industry consensus on "breaking OWL" ?
18:29:14 [alanr]
An example of a non-backward compatible change to OWL that we might want to have is hilog semantics
18:29:17 [JLUCIANO]
last coment from Horridge --correction, were needed for OWL 1.0 not 1.1
18:29:24 [sandro]
Kendall: This is a marketing decision. Don't make it for technical reasons.
18:30:01 [JLUCIANO]
Michael: Can we try to compare with other W3C standards?
18:30:06 [alanr]
+1 to Kendall
18:30:24 [kendall]
Kendall: well, don't make it primarily on technical grounds, anyway. :>
18:30:32 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: we have different opinions of what's huge
18:30:58 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: owl 11 would call possible more typos than 12
18:31:17 [alanr]
s
18:31:20 [JLUCIANO]
Carsten: can we draw on history
18:31:23 [alanr]
s/12/20/
18:31:31 [JLUCIANO]
Carsten: tends to think of this as 2.0
18:31:43 [sandro]
sandro: lot of 2.0 and 1.1 type of standards at W3C.
18:31:57 [kendall]
+1 to jeremy's point about "1.1" and "2.0" and which is easier to type, scan, read
18:32:06 [kendall]
that's actually the core of a marketing point, IMO
18:32:39 [JLUCIANO]
Rinke: bulk of people are those who download protege - doesn't matter to them // 2.0 might be a big disappointment because they've been waiting for these features for years
18:32:43 [sandro]
Rinke: people might be disappointed if they are expecting a big "2.0".
18:33:06 [m_schnei]
what about 1.5 (firefox, thunderbird) ;-)
18:33:09 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
18:33:09 [JLUCIANO]
Bernardo: continues speculating
18:33:26 [kendall]
bernardo: epic fail! :)
18:33:44 [JLUCIANO]
difference in opinion about speculation of user's response
18:34:05 [JLUCIANO]
8 people 1.1
18:34:15 [Elisa]
+1 for 2.0 (or at least 1.5)
18:34:49 [JLUCIANO]
votes for name 2.0 number is 6
18:35:13 [JLUCIANO]
bijan: thinks 1.5 seems interesting
18:35:42 [JLUCIANO]
Kendall: suggests as compromise 1.55
18:35:51 [kendall]
as a joke
18:35:52 [kendall]
:)
18:35:58 [Elisa]
I would object to 1.1 ...
18:36:24 [JLUCIANO]
who would object strongly as 1.1 --> 1
18:37:01 [Elisa]
I can live with 1.5
18:37:43 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: pitch for 1.5, Elisa stated, reduce typo, indicated smaller change than 2.0, but larger than 1.5
18:37:55 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: counter argumen - unprecedented - confusing
18:38:06 [JLUCIANO]
Markus: owl 1l.1 has been around, would confuse?
18:38:11 [JLUCIANO]
Ian: same goes for 2.0
18:38:23 [JLUCIANO]
Uli: for user we called it 1.1
18:38:51 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: would need to consult with colleagues
18:39:02 [m_schnei]
I think ms dos started with 3.11 or something like this :)
18:39:12 [JLUCIANO]
Peter: if Elisa is objecting on OMG, Peter is objecting to her objection
18:39:33 [JLUCIANO]
votes for 1.5 approx 4
18:39:58 [JLUCIANO]
against 1.5 approx same
18:41:03 [Elisa]
no, the reason is that there is significant change in the functional syntax / api
18:41:38 [JLUCIANO]
jjc would vote for with OMG reason
18:41:53 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: we are using 1.1 now, can postpone
18:42:08 [JLUCIANO]
Ian, Alanr: don't want to put decision off
18:42:11 [m_schnei]
2-\epsilon with \epsilon \in [0,0.9]
18:42:41 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2"
18:43:16 [Elisa]
+1 for OWL 2
18:43:18 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The name is "OWL 2" (ISSUE-51)
18:43:25 [bmotik]
+1
18:43:27 [MarkusK]
+1 for OWL 2
18:43:31 [jie]
+1
18:44:02 [sandro]
+1
18:44:33 [Elisa]
I prefer 2
18:44:36 [JLUCIANO]
11 votes for 2, one vote for 2.0
18:45:03 [JLUCIANO]
deborah: has to go, but doesn't care
18:45:08 [uli]
+1
18:45:25 [bijan]
+1
18:45:25 [alanr]
+1 for OWL 2
18:45:25 [Elisa]
+1 for OWL 2
18:45:25 [pfps]
+0 to OWL 2
18:45:25 [m_schnei]
+1
18:45:25 [jjc]
+1
18:45:25 [alanr]
= -1 for OWL 3
18:45:26 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"
18:45:30 [sandro]
+1
18:45:54 [ekw]
+1 for OWL 2
18:45:54 [IanH_]
0 (Oxford)
18:45:54 [Zhe]
+0.5 (Oracle)
18:45:54 [msmith]
+1 for OWL 2 (C&P)
18:45:56 [JLUCIANO]
0 (MITRE)
18:46:17 [Rinke]
+0.5 (Amsterdam)
18:46:17 [bcuencag2]
0
18:46:17 [Elisa]
+1 to resolution
18:46:17 [bijan]
+1 for OWL 2
18:46:17 [sandro]
Boris: implement before next release?
18:46:17 [sandro]
Sandro: I think we can do it.
18:47:00 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-51 by saying the name is "OWL 2"
18:47:21 [sandro]
Bijan: call the old one, "OWL", "OWL 1", or "OWL 1.0"
18:47:37 [sandro]
"OWL 2 DL"
18:47:41 [m_schnei]
"ancient OWL", "classic OWL", choose your favourite
18:47:49 [sandro]
"OWL 1"
18:47:52 [sandro]
Agreed: "OWL 1" and "OWL 2 DL"
18:47:58 [kendall]
OWL Classic :)
18:48:25 [JLUCIANO]
Boris: change name now, will take 15 mins
18:48:43 [Zakim]
+Deb_McGuinness
18:49:06 [JLUCIANO]
No object to change doc name now
18:49:14 [JLUCIANO]
Boris: changed his doc
18:49:23 [JLUCIANO]
Question about "short name"
18:49:55 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: cross-references will be painful if we don't change name now
18:50:20 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: do it when we re-publish /
18:50:29 [JLUCIANO]
Ian: disagrees .... the sooner the better
18:51:16 [JLUCIANO]
alan: objects because we didn't publish that we would be making this change
18:51:28 [JLUCIANO]
Ian: difference between publishing and updating
18:52:08 [JLUCIANO]
Sandro: software desitgned to be published all at once (a software issue). also, looks cumberson to reference "correctly"
18:52:35 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: these issues may justify breaking the normal process rules
18:53:00 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: state that they are being republished in order to substantiate the name change
18:53:08 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
18:53:34 [JLUCIANO]
jjc: can say we're not taking comments on these versions
18:53:59 [JLUCIANO]
alan: objects to publish doc that is about to be republished (alan correct if i got wrong)
18:54:51 [JLUCIANO]
Bijan: proposes making explict that it's same doc, only the name change and that subsequent will be the one to be reviewed
18:55:48 [JLUCIANO]
boris: syntax is already done
18:56:49 [JLUCIANO]
PROPOSED: REVERT, CHANGE, PUBLISH, REVERT BACK to roll back to last snap shot, change all 1.1 to 2, take new snapshot, status of doc is only name change
18:57:29 [sandro]
PROPOSAL: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.
18:57:43 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
18:57:43 [uli]
+1
18:57:45 [alanr]
+1
18:57:46 [MarkusK]
+1
18:57:47 [jie]
+1
18:57:47 [Rinke]
+1
18:57:47 [Zhe]
+1
18:57:47 [Achille]
+1
18:57:48 [sandro]
+1
18:57:53 [msmith]
+1
18:58:00 [ekw]
+1
18:58:01 [Elisa]
+1
18:58:02 [bcuencag2]
+1
18:58:28 [pfps]
+1
18:58:33 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Publish new versions of Syntax, Semantics, and Mapping-to-RDF with the ONLY change being the "1.1" -> "2" name change.
18:59:33 [jjc]
BTW +1 for that resolution
18:59:42 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
18:59:54 [alanr]
Action: Sandro to manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change
18:59:54 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-128 - Manage the previous documents 1.1->2 change [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-10].
19:00:43 [sandro]
(and I'll just do it on copies, so it wont even change the wiki history.)
19:01:09 [JLUCIANO]
finished naming discussion
19:01:35 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
19:01:44 [sandro]
Jeremy: "OWL 2 Full"
19:01:54 [m_schnei_]
m_schnei_ has joined #owl
19:04:22 [ekw_]
ekw_ has joined #owl
19:05:20 [Rinke]
Boris, perhaps we should not change the reference to the OWL 1.1 member submission to OWL 2
19:05:45 [ekw]
Topic: OWL 2 Full Semantics Issues
19:05:49 [alanr]
the submission was 1.1, so that shouldn't change, I think.
19:05:55 [kendall]
+1
19:06:00 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
19:06:11 [kendall]
that's another reason for owl 2 being a good change; the submission is now distinct, 1.1, from the new standard
19:06:26 [alanr]
yes - makes us feel like we've accomplished something ;-)
19:06:30 [kendall]
that's a nice clarification for people not paying a lot of attention
19:06:37 [Rinke]
+1 to accomplishment :)
19:06:45 [kendall]
alanr: s/something/something good/ ;>
19:06:52 [alanr]
:)
19:06:58 [ekw]
Michael Schneider is presenting slides
19:07:31 [ekw]
OWL Full overview slide
19:07:53 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #owl
19:08:20 [jjc2]
19:09:11 [ekw]
Ian: It is true that every RDF graph is syntactically valid input to OWL Full and every RDF graph is sematically interpreted
19:09:11 [sandro]
scribenick: ekw
19:09:30 [ekw]
But: That doesn't mean that the interpretation is sensible
19:09:43 [ekw]
OWL Full and OWL DL slide
19:11:42 [ekw]
MSch: a class itself is itself an individual in the domain
19:12:13 [ekw]
State of OWL 1.1 Full Development
19:12:23 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
19:13:13 [ekw]
MSch: for 1.1 the semantics for Full should be conservative extension to OWL 1 Full semantics
19:13:42 [ekw]
MSch: Every DL entailment should also be a Full entailment in 1.1
19:14:03 [Zakim]
-Deb_McGuinness
19:14:35 [jbao]
jbao has joined #owl
19:15:11 [ekw]
Sandrow: is it also true everything that is not entailed in Full should be not entailed in DL
19:15:52 [Rinke]
s/Sandrow/Sandro
19:16:56 [ekw]
Msch: see
for current state of OWL 1.1 semantics proposal
19:17:33 [ekw]
MSch: about 1/2 the language features in this are ready for review
19:17:40 [jjc2]
19:17:52 [ekw]
Slide: Issues with OWL DL Compatibility
19:18:51 [JLUCIANO]
JLUCIANO has joined #owl
19:18:52 [ekw]
MSch: OWL Full has infinite universe. This is simply shown
19:20:27 [ekw]
MSch: OWL Full always has entailments not existing in OWL DL
19:21:05 [sandro]
Peter: hope was: IF premise AND conclusion were BOTH in DL, THEN they would be equally strong.
19:21:59 [ekw]
MSch: Have a feeling that OWL DL might have entailments not existing in OWL Full
19:23:27 [jjc2]
19:24:52 [ekw]
JJC: Dave Turner did a study of the semantics of OWL 1.0 which the ref'd doc discusses
19:25:23 [jjc2]
verified the theorem from OWL 1.0 semantics doc
19:25:28 [jjc2]
with minor errata
19:25:36 [ekw]
Slide: Issues with OWL 1.0 Full
19:26:48 [ekw]
MSch: Found bugs in semantics
19:27:19 [ekw]
Bug in sem for boolean axioms lead to OWL Full inconsistency
19:27:25 [bmotik]
I've just updated all the documents from 1.1 to 2. I've also changed owl11 -> owl2 owl11-xml -> owl2-xml. Finally, I've changed all references for OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.
19:28:08 [ekw]
MSch: I will be writing this up in the Wiki page referenced earlier
19:28:55 [ekw]
MSch: Fixing this bug will lead to incompatibility with 1.0
19:29:27 [ekw]
MSch: RDFS has a collection of so called axiomatic conditions
19:31:05 [ekw]
MSch: PD* assumes certain of these semantic conditions that were not actually imposed on OWL Full
19:31:58 [ekw]
Slide: Issues with OWL 1.1 Full
19:32:32 [ekw]
MSch: Mapping for QCRs have a problem (which Peter has noted)
19:32:53 [ekw]
MSch: Every QCR will also be a normal CR in Full
19:33:26 [ekw]
Relevance: Essentially QCRs unusable in Full because of this
19:33:43 [ekw]
PFPS: All different is actually OK
19:35:21 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
19:35:24 [ekw_]
ekw_ has joined #owl
19:35:42 [ekw]
test
19:36:08 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
19:36:48 [msmith]
msmith has joined #owl
19:37:00 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #owl
19:37:02 [pfps]
pfps has joined #owl
19:37:36 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
19:37:48 [jbao]
jbao has joined #owl
19:37:58 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl
19:38:09 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
19:38:20 [IanH]
IanH has joined #owl
19:38:43 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
19:39:06 [sandro]
jjc: with owl 1 , the self-restriction on type (the PS paradox) is well known.... What is new in OWL 2 here?
19:39:24 [sandro]
m_schnei: Comprehension Principals ... something
19:39:39 [sandro]
Bijan: the comprension princpals entail a contradiction
19:40:09 [sandro]
Boris: for all x r(x,x)
19:41:12 [sandro]
Ian: We've never proven that OWL Full is consistent, so adding stuff isn't likely to help us prove that!
19:43:09 [ekw]
ekw has joined #owl
19:46:35 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
19:51:12 [evrensirin]
evrensirin has joined #owl
20:04:30 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
20:07:52 [jbao]
jbao has joined #owl
20:08:24 [jbao]
jbao has joined #owl
20:17:36 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
20:20:02 [jjc]
jjc has joined #owl
20:21:57 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
20:21:58 [ekw]
test
20:22:15 [alanr]
h
20:22:36 [sandro]
scribenick: bijan
20:23:00 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
20:23:10 [bmotik]
scribenick bmotik
20:23:17 [sandro]
scribenick: bmotik
20:24:05 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-69: punning is incompatible with OWL Full
20:24:46 [Zakim]
-Meeting_Room
20:24:54 [bmotik]
alanr: The main problem is with equivalence: if A sameas B, then A equivalent B in OWL Full but not in OWL DL
20:25:32 [bmotik]
alanr: What to do with these entailments?
20:25:54 [bmotik]
bijan & alanr: We could say that this is not a ligal OWL DL entailment
20:26:12 [pfps]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:26:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall
20:26:21 [bmotik]
alanr: When we talk about semantic subsets, we talked about the status of the missing entailments
20:26:36 [bmotik]
alanr: There is a parallel with the fragments/profiles
20:26:48 [bmotik]
alanr: We should decide in general what our position is on such situations
20:27:23 [bmotik]
bijan: We should not have any additional entailments
20:27:34 [Zakim]
+??P0
20:27:51 [pfps]
zakim, ??p0 is meeting room
20:27:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??p0 is meeting room', pfps
20:28:02 [sandro]
Sandro: This sounds like a "loose" vs "strict" mode on a reasoner.
20:28:03 [pfps]
zakim, ??p0 is meetingRoom
20:28:03 [Zakim]
+meetingRoom; got it
20:28:09 [bmotik]
jjc: We always think in terms of reasoner behavior
20:28:18 [bmotik]
jjc: W3C talks about documents
20:28:32 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
20:29:19 [bmotik]
bijan: In OWL DL reasoning you care about the missing entailmens
20:29:41 [bmotik]
bijan: In OWL DL you care about "no" answers -- for example, when classifying an ontology
20:30:32 [bmotik]
alanr: Two points: (1) the analogy to DL-safe rules is not a good analogy because they require a new syntax, (2) Sandro brings up another option: we have always two modes
20:31:42 [sandro]
Sandro: yes, Jeremy, but the meaning of an OWL document found on the web is NOT specified in the case where there is a difference between OWL DL and OWL Full.
20:32:33 [bmotik]
sandro: This WG does not flag documents as being DL and Full; hence, we are not really specifying the meaning of documents
20:33:36 [bmotik]
bijan: jjc does not like punning because from the syntax we don't know which type of reasoning to use for a given ontology
20:33:39 [sandro]
modulo the differences between DL and Full.
20:36:26 [bmotik]
bmotik: We might have an ontology property that would say which semantics it requires
20:37:05 [bmotik]
alanr: We have OWL Full, OWL DL, OWL-R; we should make a parallel between all these situations
20:37:15 [bmotik]
jjc: Agrees with alanr
20:38:25 [bmotik]
ianh: Clarifies that there is a problem with nonentailments in all these (sub)languages
20:38:43 [bmotik]
ianh: Is providing additional entailments optional or an error?
20:39:33 [bmotik]
peter: Does not aregree with this analogy
20:39:41 [bmotik]
sandro: Does agree with the analogy
20:40:35 [sandro]
Sandro: It sounds like we should have unnamed languages, "DL+" and "OWL-R+", where the "+" can be turned off in "Strict" mode.
20:40:38 [bmotik]
bijan: Some people might not implement nominals, but missing entailments for nominals is an error
20:41:53 [bmotik]
peter: If you are not in OWL DL mode, you have to say you're not in the OWL DL mode
20:41:59 [sandro]
JJC: if you make a DL reasoner or a OWL-R reasoner, you must have a "strict" mode.
20:42:06 [bmotik]
peter: How far does the + go?
20:42:14 [bmotik]
peter: Can you go above OWL Full?
20:42:25 [sandro]
Peter: How far does the "+" go? All the way to Full, and beyond to collapse?
20:42:25 [bmotik]
bijan: Yes, you should be able to go above OWL Full.
20:42:59 [bmotik]
jjc: If I introduce additional vocabulary and give it semantics, I see nothing wrong with allowing my reasoner to provide additional entailments
20:43:22 [bmotik]
bijan: We should not have a strict or nonstrict mode
20:43:37 [bmotik]
bijan: If people want to extend their tools, they are free to do so.
20:43:48 [bmotik]
bijan: Such extensions might fail the test suite, but who cares.
20:43:50 [sandro]
Sandro: If you add "+" stuff, then you fail the test suite.
20:43:55 [sandro]
Bijan: yeah, so what?
20:44:22 [bmotik]
ianh: Of course we can't stop implementors from implementing extensions
20:44:58 [bmotik]
ianh: In question is whether there should be a defined +
20:45:25 [bmotik]
ianh: Such + would have OWL Full as its top
20:45:27 [sandro]
alan: implicit is OWL-DL+ == OWL-Fill
20:45:32 [sandro]
s/Fill/Full/
20:45:43 [bmotik]
joanne: My first interpretation of + is any addition that someone might want to put on
20:45:58 [bmotik]
joanne: We should specify what we specify and not overlegislate
20:46:15 [bmotik]
alanr: Legislation means that we specify exactly what entailments we should specify
20:46:25 [bmotik]
analr: This is a minimum
20:47:17 [bmotik]
alanr: Question to Zhe: are you comfortable about specifying OWL-R Full as "this is precisely the set of entailments that your reasoner should make"?
20:47:42 [bmotik]
Zhe: A strict mode is a good thing (it enhances compatibility)
20:47:49 [bmotik]
Zhe: Oracle has user-defined rule support
20:47:58 [bmotik]
Zhe: People might want to define uncles
20:48:30 [bmotik]
Zhe: Oracle wants to support the OWL-R subset in a strict mode, but it also wants to have the ability to extend this
20:48:44 [bmotik]
alanr: So a strict mode seems like a good idea
20:49:09 [bmotik]
ianh: I don't even thing it is necessary to say "you can do more"?
20:49:31 [bmotik]
ianh: If people want to do more, there is no way for us to prevent them from doing this
20:49:43 [bcuencag2]
bcuencag2 has joined #owl
20:50:04 [bmotik]
sanrdo: But there is the test suite that says to the people what they can't do
20:51:54 [bmotik]
boris: We might split the test suite into the positive and the negative part
20:52:09 [bmotik]
boris: If people do additional stuff, they can then say what negative part they violated
20:52:58 [bmotik]
bijan: Vendors might distinguish the strict and "sensible" entailments
20:54:46 [bmotik]
jjc: Whatever we decide, the DL tools will do what they want to do
20:55:06 [bmotik]
jjc: Punning between classes and individuals is a "lost cause"
20:55:37 [bmotik]
jjc: OWL-Full vendors will say whatever they wanted to do (sameAs implies equivalence)
20:55:55 [bmotik]
jjc: This issue seems not worth discussing, because it will not make the difference to the world
20:56:34 [bmotik]
achille: The reailty is that people will implement more and they will go beyond the strict mode
20:57:04 [bmotik]
ianh: I agree with Jeremy, but isn't that the argument to white the spec in exactly the way that the users want to do?
20:57:14 [bmotik]
s/white/write
20:57:48 [bmotik]
STRAWPOLL: We define our languages with an exact set of entailments
20:58:09 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain entailments. OWL-R does not have certain entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
20:58:32 [bmotik]
most people in favor, jjc has a problem with what the document means
20:59:29 [bmotik]
peter: I would prefer the situation where we had different document types of all entailments
20:59:51 [bmotik]
peter: The 10 working group did not allow us to have this
20:59:55 [bmotik]
s/10/1.0
21:00:44 [bmotik]
alanr: There is an uncertainty about what would happen in DL if sameAs should imply equivalence
21:01:07 [bmotik]
alanr: We should defer such questions to future WGs
21:01:48 [bmotik]
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-69 by specifying OWL DL and OWL Full by an exact set of entailments
21:02:02 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
21:02:20 [zBijan]
+1
21:02:29 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-69 saying that define our languages as some set of entailments. DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implemented other/related languages if they want.
21:02:46 [jjc]
-epsilon (HP)
21:02:48 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
21:02:50 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
21:02:59 [pfps]
+1 to resolve issue 69
21:03:01 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
21:03:09 [zBijan]
+1 (Manchester)
21:03:17 [sandro]
-0
21:03:40 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
21:03:53 [IanH]
PROPOSED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.
21:04:17 [bmotik]
+1 (Oxford)
21:04:20 [zBijan]
+1 (Manchester)
21:04:24 [Achille]
+1 (IBM)
21:04:25 [alanr]
+1 (Science Commons)
21:04:25 [ekw]
+1 (NIST)
21:04:26 [Zhe]
+1 (Oracle)
21:04:27 [baojie]
0
21:04:29 [pfps]
+1 to the resolution
21:04:30 [jjc]
-epsilon (HP)
21:04:31 [sandro]
-0
21:04:31 [Rinke]
+1 (Amsterdam)
21:04:40 [msmith]
+1 (C&P)
21:04:40 [Elisa]
+1
21:04:45 [MarkusK]
+1 (FZI)
21:05:07 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
21:05:19 [sandro]
jjc states -epsilon as non-blocking
21:05:22 [bmotik]
RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.
21:05:53 [JLUCIANO]
JLUCIANO has joined #owl
21:06:01 [bmotik]
bijan: There is no way to indicate the semantic intent. We could introduce MIME types
21:06:35 [bmotik]
alanr: Not on the agenta, bijan should raise an issue
21:06:49 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-12 is closed
21:07:22 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
21:07:24 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-67, ISSUE-81: Reification issues
21:07:52 [bmotik]
alanr: Jeremy split this into two cases: (1) the use of reification for annotations, and (2) the use of reification for negative property assertions
21:08:00 [bmotik]
alanr: I'd like to split these two issues
21:08:54 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-81 is different from ISSUE-67 in the sente that annotations might not have semantics at all, so they would not affect the formal meaning of an ontology
21:09:12 [ekw_]
ekw_ has joined #owl
21:09:29 [bmotik]
alanr: Question to jeremy and m_schneider: could we say that ISSUE-67 is not a problem and focus on ISSUE-81
21:09:35 [ekw__]
ekw__ has joined #owl
21:09:46 [bmotik]
m_shneider: The use of reification is opposed by the community, so this is why I would not use it
21:10:22 [bmotik]
m_schneider: Do we want to use RDF reification.
21:10:36 [thomassch]
thomassch has joined #owl
21:10:37 [bmotik]
m_schneider: It is not a technical or a semantic problem; this is a nicety issue
21:10:45 [bmotik]
m_schneider: People just don't like reification
21:10:55 [sandro]
+1 m_schnei it's a social problem to use RDF Reification here, even if not a technical problem.
21:11:36 [bmotik]
bijan: There are lots of alternative encodings
21:11:52 [bmotik]
bijan: Boris was in favor of reification because reification was designed for this purpose
21:13:39 [bmotik]
boris: We need to encode more than binary predicates, so we'll need to reify them
21:13:56 [bmotik]
boris: Reification is necessary and people are doing it already in general
21:14:46 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I don't see some other opporunity for encoding negative assertions
21:15:14 [bmotik]
alanr: Achille and Zhe, do you care about this?
21:15:18 [bmotik]
Achille: I don't care
21:15:30 [bmotik]
Zhe: People hate reification
21:15:45 [bmotik]
Zhe: Reification requires joins so I'd like to avoid it
21:16:34 [bmotik]
alanr: We could reolve this issue by saying "we can try something else"
21:16:54 [bmotik]
jjc: We are then not resolving, but just postponing the issue
21:18:32 [bmotik]
jjc: What is the problem with a complemented hasValue assertion?
21:18:55 [bmotik]
bijan: This is bad because you can use negative assertions without nominals
21:19:12 [sandro]
Bijan: I don't lilke the Compliment-Of approach to ISSUE-81. Using a nominal in that way hides the fact that you don't support nominals. I mean, ... I can encode a lot of things into more expressive logics!
21:19:16 [bmotik]
bijan: Using a nominal for just a property assertion makes it difficult to say what it allowed in which fragment
21:19:20 [sandro]
Uli: Yes, it would be difficult in the fragments.
21:19:39 [bmotik]
s/it allowed/is allowed
21:20:55 [bmotik]
m_schneider: Likes shadow vocabulary
21:21:06 [bmotik]
jjc: Dislikes shadow vocabulary
21:22:31 [bmotik]
alanr: Solving this technical problem in this room is likely not to work
21:22:53 [bmotik]
alanr: I propose that we record that we don't like this issue and that we postpone the resolution until later
21:23:08 [m_schnei]
bijan, we have simply *luck* that we have this totally different kind of encoding (actually a semantical circumscription) of neg prop assertions; but what about annotations?
21:23:33 [sandro]
jjc: I would vote -0 on the reification vocabulary.
21:23:34 [bmotik]
bijan: Have we learnt that people really dislike reification?
21:23:57 [bmotik]
jjc and sandro: Would vote -0 on using reification
21:24:37 [sandro]
ACTION: Bijan to come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81.
21:24:37 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-129 - Come up with proposals for ISSUE-67 and ISSUE-81. [on Bijan Parsia - due 2008-04-10].
21:25:08 [bmotik]
jjc: HP has discovered that special support for reification is costly and we'll drop it in future
21:25:10 [sandro]
SCRIBE CORRECTION -- I said I might have to vote "-1" on this -- I need to check.
21:25:37 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91: Related to backwards compatibility
21:25:43 [sandro]
(where "this" == use of RDF Reification in OWL)
21:26:12 [sandro]
(no problem, bmotik, it happens! :-)
21:27:02 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I have a proposal for addressing this
21:27:16 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I propose to have deprecations as semantic-free annotations
21:27:28 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I propose to keep OWL-Full as is
21:27:39 [bmotik]
m_schneider: Do not deprecate Deprecation
21:27:59 [bmotik]
peter: Let me say what Michael's proposal should me
21:28:25 [bmotik]
peter: There should not be deprecated classes and properties in OWL 2 DL
21:28:58 [bmotik]
peter: owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty should be the same as owl:Class and owl:Property
21:29:47 [bmotik]
m_schneider: In OWL 1 DL, the following was the case:
21:30:18 [bmotik]
m_schneider: There were OWL 1 DL deprecated classes and properties
21:30:40 [bmotik]
m_schneider: There was a special "deprecated" flag in the abstract syntax
21:30:57 [bmotik]
m_schneider: There was a special trick for handing the "deprecated" flag in the AS
21:31:15 [bmotik]
m_schneider: This flag was handled in the semantics using an artificial rdf:type property
21:31:21 [bmotik]
m_schneider: This was confusing
21:32:00 [bmotik]
m_schneider: From the semantic point of view: there no mapping of an rdf:type property from OWL/RDF into AS
21:32:23 [jjc]
SCRIBE CORRECTION: I said "we'll probably drop it"
21:32:24 [bmotik]
m_schneider: In OWL 1, annotations do have a semantics, so all this mattered
21:33:54 [bmotik]
peter: This was done in order to turn a one-place thing into a two-place thing
21:36:05 [bmotik]
m_schneider: My proposal is to map owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty into annotations in the structural spec
21:36:34 [bmotik]
ianh: Do you care about round-tripping RDF -> FS -> RDF?
21:39:11 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Is it okay to read in an OWL 1 ontology (with deprecated classes) into an OWL 2 system -- then you write it out again, is it still OWL 1
21:39:16 [bmotik]
ianh: You take an OWL 1 ontology with deprecated classes, you read it into an OWL 2 system, you write it out. Do we care about whether the deprecated triples are the same?
21:40:32 [bmotik]
m_schneider objects to this
21:40:39 [sandro]
JJC: It only costs two mapping rules to preserve this. If this is the only time we violate the round tripping (1->2->1) goal, then I'm for including the ugly hack mapping rules.
21:40:52 [bmotik]
m_schneider: If we have an RDF graph with some deprecation statements.
21:41:05 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I put such an ontology into an OWL Full reasoner
21:41:09 [JLUCIANO_]
JLUCIANO_ has joined #owl
21:41:21 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I put it into an OWL DL system, and serialize it again
21:41:34 [bmotik]
m_schneider: What ia get in the end is something that is quite different from what I started with
21:41:44 [bmotik]
s/ia/I
21:41:56 [sandro]
JJC: it's reasonable to do a sparql query for deprecated classes and assume if you don't get any that you don't have any deprecated classes.
21:42:43 [sandro]
JJC: Because DeprecatedClass has only informal semantics, using sparql query is plausible.
21:42:43 [bmotik]
bijan: What is the general cost of existing ontologies?
21:43:05 [bmotik]
bijan: If this is a corner case in practice, this might not be worth investigating
21:43:30 [bmotik]
achille: I agree with m_schneider that this might be a problem, but we might put the compatibility bar too high
21:43:59 [bmotik]
achille: You can have the ability in your tool to preserve depecations
21:44:13 [bmotik]
achille: I don't see the absolute need with perfect round-tripping
21:44:18 [sandro]
achille: it could be a value-added feature that your OWL 2 tool can maintain OWL 1 ontologies, but we shouldn't mandate it.
21:44:41 [sandro]
bmotik: I see the question as more: do we want to have deprecation?
21:45:08 [bmotik]
rinke: The functional-syntax is suited for OWL DL
21:45:25 [bmotik]
rinke: I cannot really imagine anyone loading an OWL Full ontology in an OWL DL tool
21:45:31 [bmotik]
rinke: Deprecation is a tool issue
21:45:53 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I create an OWL DL ontology with Protege
21:46:12 [bmotik]
m_schneider: I want to use an OWL Full reasoner to get additional entailments
21:46:18 [bmotik]
m_schneider: To me this is a valid use case
21:46:53 [bmotik]
jjc: The issue is whether we want to have deprecation
21:47:04 [bmotik]
alanr: I'm taking it as given that we are not getting rid of it
21:47:09 [bmotik]
jjc: My point, alanr
21:47:31 [bmotik]
jjc: There clearly is a use for deprecation
21:47:57 [bmotik]
peter: I do not believe that the WG has made any decision about deprecating Deprecation
21:48:23 [bmotik]
alanr: I don't think it would be a good decision to deprecate deprecations because this might give us problems
21:48:46 [bmotik]
jjc: If we are not going to deprecate deprecations, then let's just do a bit of hackery to make it work
21:49:55 [bmotik]
ACTION: bmotik2 to Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings
21:49:55 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-130 - Propose a way to reintroduce annotations into the structural specification and to provide RDF mappings [on Boris Motik - due 2008-04-10].
21:50:07 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
21:50:32 [m_schnei]
ian, i don't understand what you mean by "roundtripping through OWL2 DL"?
21:50:48 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
21:51:04 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-90, resolved. We will hack the RDF mapping and functional syntax as necessary to allow DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty to work as in OWL 1
21:51:11 [bmotik]
No objectors, resolved unanimously
21:51:30 [bmotik]
alanr: ISSUE-91: Spec lacks ontology properties
21:53:48 [sandro]
JJC: I would be happy with a NOTE saying These are only intended to be used on ontologies.
21:53:55 [bmotik]
jjc: Add a note that these ontology properties should be used only on ontologies
21:56:26 [sandro]
NOT-PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
21:57:49 [JLUCIANO_]
JLUCIANO_ has joined #owl
21:57:51 [m_schnei]
why not introducing OntologyAnnotationProperties? ;-)
21:57:51 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
21:57:55 [bmotik]
PROPOSED: Reolsve ISSUE-91 by adding a note in the structural spec by saying that ontology properties should not be used elsewhere as annotations
21:58:17 [sandro]
Ian: there are no entailments in DL. In Full, you may get weird entailments if you violate these rules.
21:58:30 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-91, with text saying not to do this (ontology properties should only be used to relate ontologies -- if you go against our advice, you're on your own.
21:58:48 [sandro]
ADJOURN
21:59:12 [baojie]
baojie has left #owl
21:59:26 [m_schnei]
exit
22:00:13 [Zakim]
-Elisa_Kendall
22:00:13 [sandro]
Zakim, drop Meeting_Room
22:00:15 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not see a party named 'Meeting_Room'
22:02:04 [bmotik]
Resolution of ISSUE-91:
22:02:28 [Zakim]
-meetingRoom
22:02:30 [Zakim]
Team_(owl)13:09Z has ended
22:02:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Sandro, Owlf2f, Meeting_Room, Deb_McGuinness, meetingRoom
22:05:52 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
22:09:58 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
22:13:22 [jjc2]
jjc2 has joined #owl
22:30:14 [thomassch]
thomassch has left #owl
22:32:19 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
22:33:26 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
22:38:32 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
22:42:19 [zBijan]
zBijan has joined #owl
22:43:46 [alanr_]
alanr_ has joined #owl
22:45:04 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
22:48:50 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
23:32:23 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl