IRC log of owl on 2008-06-11
Timestamps are in UT:06 [IanH]
Thanks!:41 [IanH]
Peter, are you there and ready to scribe?:02:04 [ewallace]
sandro: what is "pointer"
17:02:29 [sandro]
ewallace, it's the URL for where things are being logged at this point.
17:02:38 [ewallace]
cool
17:02:43 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make log public
17:03:07 [MarkusK]
ok,. I can scribe
17:03:35 [MarkusK]
ok, fine
17:03:37 [Zakim]
+??P13
17:03:43 [MarkusK]
scribenick MarkusK
17:03:45 [ivan]
scribenick: MarkusK
17:03:47 [bcuencagrau]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:03:47 [Zakim]
+bcuencagrau; got it
17:04:00 [ivan]
scribe: Markus
17:04:05 [Zakim]
+calvanese:25 [calvanese]
zakim, mute me
17:04:25 [Zakim]
calvanese should now be muted
17:04:29 [ewallace]
Who has the machine that goes "ping"?
17:04:34 [Zakim]
+Alan_Ruttenberg
17:04:48 [MarkusK]
no agenda amendments
17:04:54 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
17:05:08 [MarkusK]
Previous minutes
17:05:09 [pfps]
oops, i'm here now
17:05:15 [Zakim]
+Peter_Patel-Schneider
17:05:20 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:05:30 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:05:30 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:06:02 [uli]
they aren't pretty
17:06:05 [pfps]
the previous minutes were not acceptable yesterday
17:06:07 [MarkusK]
Ian: can someone apprve previous minutes
17:06:11 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:06:22 [msmith]
msmith has changed the topic to:
17:06:24 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #owl
17:06:33 [MarkusK]
Ian: Minutes may need new mechanism to be prepared
17:06:46 [MarkusK]
Sandro: the old partial minutes have confused people
17:06:54 [sandro]
17:07:02 [bcuencagrau]
zakim, mute me
17:07:02 [Zakim]
bcuencagrau should now be muted:07:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.438.aaaa
17:08:01 [pfps]
what is "the right place"?
17:08:03 [MarkusK]
Ian: previous minutes cannot be accepted yet since not many people saw the final version
17:08:13 [Zhe]
Zakim, +1.603.438.aaaa is me
17:08:13 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:08:18 [IanH]
q?
17:08:55 [MarkusK]
Ian: registration for F2F3 still should be completed
17:09:06 [MarkusK]
Topic: Action item review
17:09:07 [ewallace]
topic: Pending Review Actions
17:09:14 [ewallace]
sorry
17:09:25 [MarkusK]
you're welcome to assist :-)
17:09:50 [IanH]
q?
17:09:58 [MarkusK]
Achille: Review of RDF mapping document completed last week
17:10:11 [JeffPan]
JeffPan has joined #owl
17:10:13 [MarkusK]
... found them to be OK, though primer still needs to be updated
17:10:21 [pfps]
Ian - today is 11 June, *not* 4 June!
17:10:28 [pfps]
q+
17:10:29 [MarkusK]
... my only point was in the syntax document
17:10:33 [Zakim]
-Alan_Ruttenberg
17:10:37 [IanH]
q?
17:11:34 [MarkusK]
Ian: the above refered to Action 148, which was still open, though not menitioned in the agenda
17:11:43 [Zakim]
+jar
17:11:48 [IanH]
q?
17:11:52 [MarkusK]
s/menitioned/mentioned/
17:11:59 [ivan]
ack pfps
17:12:04 [MarkusK]
Ian: Action 148 completed
17:12:23 [MarkusK]
... Boris' Action 131 shall be deferred until later
17:12:24 [Zakim]
+??P8
17:12:31 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:12:39 [Zakim]
+qhreul
17:12:41 [MarkusK]
Ian: Action 42 (Bijan)
17:12:44 [alanr]
alanr has joined #owl
17:12:50 [JeffPan]
zakim, qhreul is me
17:12:50 [Zakim]
+JeffPan; got it
17:13:11 [MarkusK]
Bijan: Action is ongoing, I hope to have it done by next week
17:13:36 [MarkusK]
Ian: Action 147 (Michael)
17:13:45 [MarkusK]
... a detailed review was provided
17:14:00 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:14:00 , jar,
17:14:03 [Zakim]
... ??P8, JeffPan
17:14:04 :14:05 [MarkusK]
... Michael is not on the call to comment
17:14:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:14:20 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:14:44 [IanH]
q?]
... the points appear to be minor suggestions for the most part, and I will try to implement the easy comments first
17:15:45 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:15:45 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:15:47 [MarkusK]
... I wil come back with any non-obvious comments for further discussion
17:15:53 [MarkusK]
s/wil/will/
17:16:14 [alanr]
+1
17:16:19 [MarkusK]
Ian: then let us close Action 147 for the moment
17:16:25 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:16:27 [alanr]
zakim, jar is alanr
17:16:27 [Zakim]
+alanr; got it
17:16:41 [bijan]
I htink that's me
17:16:43 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:16:44 :16:47 [Zakim]
... alanr, ??P8, JeffPan
17:16:48 :16:50 [Zakim]
... trackbot
17:16:52 [bijan]
zakim, ??P8 is me
17:16:52 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
17:16:57 [MarkusK]
Ian: ??P8 and jar are unidentified participants who must be identified
17:16:57 [m_schnei]
sorry, today only IRC
17:17:10 [bijan]
zakim, who is here?
17:17:10 :17:13 [Zakim]
... alanr, bijan, JeffPan
17:17:13 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I fixed it
17:17:14 :17:16 [Zakim]
... trackbot
17:17:22 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:17:22 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:17:34 [MarkusK]
Ian: Action 150 (Jie Bao)
17:17:43 [IanH]
q?
17:17:48 [MarkusK]
... Jie Bao is not here to comment
17:17:56 [MarkusK]
... so Action remains open until next week
17:18:11 [m_schnei]
action 147 is finished
17:18:11 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 147
17:18:20 [MarkusK]
Topic: Issues
17:18:34 [m_schnei]
i have finished action 147
17:18:38 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:18:38 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:18:46 [MarkusK]
Ian: Issue 104 appeared to be a rather obvious fix for the OWL Full semantics
17:19:04 [m_schnei]
i have just sent a mail regarding 104
17:19:05 [IanH]
q?
17:19:14 [MarkusK]
Boris: yes, we can change the mapping to address that issue
17:19:22 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
17:20:00 [MarkusK]
Ian: so we can propose to resolve Issue 104
17:20:19 [ewallace]
104 or 124?
17:20:21 [IanH]
PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 124 as per
17:20:28 [bmotik]
+1
17:20:32 [IanH]
+1
17:20:36 [Zhe]
+1
17:20:37 [bcuencagrau]
+1
17:20:39 [MarkusK]
s/104/124/
17:20:40 [pfps]
+1
17:20:42 [sandro]
0 (sorry, not up to speed on issue)
17:20:46 [ivan]
+1
17:20:47 [JeffPan]
0
17:20:49 [uli]
+1
17:20:50 [msmith]
+1
17:20:52 [MarkusK]
+1
17:20:55 [ewallace]
+1
17:20:56 [bijan]
+1
17:21:03 [Zakim]
+??P1
17:21:09 [clu]
zakim, ??p1 is me
17:21:09 [Zakim]
+clu; got it
17:21:12 [IanH]
RESOLVED: esolve Issue 124 as per
17:21:13 [clu]
zakim, mute me
17:21:13 [Zakim]
clu should now be muted
17:21:17 [clu]
Sorry for being late.
17:21:20 [ivan]
s/esolve/resolve/
17:21:46 [MarkusK]
Ian: Issue 104 was discussed in many emails
17:21:54 [IanH]
q?
17:21:59 [MarkusK]
... many people raised concerns
17:22:06 [bmotik]
q+
17:22:10 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:22:10 [Zakim]
bmotik was not muted, bmotik
17:22:45 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:22:45 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:23:02 [MarkusK]
Boris: one issue is that reification and collections are the only ones that make sense to take out of the reserved vocabulary
17:23:10 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:23:10 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:23:46 [MarkusK]
... I send a proposal for having a shadow-vocabulary for OWL, but this met little approval
17:23:52 [alanr]
the proposal was to define our own terminology for the serialization
17:23:58 [alanr]
q+
17:24:02 [alanr]
ack bmotik
17:24:16 [MarkusK]
... the technical problem is that we have no ObjectProperty/DatatypeProperty puning
17:24:21 [IanH]
q?
17:24:44 [alanr]
we need not assign a type in the language - leave it to the modeler
17:24:45 [MarkusK]
... hence vocabulary like rdf:first are not easy to define in OWL: one would have to asign a fixed type
17:24:58 [alanr]
s/asign/assign/
17:25:14 [MarkusK]
... rdf:first may then get many types in different applications and I propose to not allow it in OWL DL vocabulary
17:25:15 [bijan]
Or a shadow vocabualry
17:25:19 [IanH]
q?
17:25:43 [MarkusK]
AlanR: there were various proposals to address this
17:26:02 [bijan]
bijan has joined #owl
17:26:17 [MarkusK]
... one was to have an OWL shadow vocabulary, such as owl:first, to resolve possible typing conflicts
17:26:20 [m_schnei]
in my mail I argue for not treat lists at all in OWL DL, so people may declare it to be either a data or a object property, if they wish
17:26:32 [bmotik]
q+
17:26:33 [MarkusK]
... the other proposal was to admit rdf:first and leave typing to modellers
17:26:37 [ivan]
ack alanr
17:26:42 [IanH]
q?
17:26:50 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:26:52 [m_schnei]
rdf:first would then be just an URI like any other
17:26:56 [MarkusK]
... one would then need to use OWL Full if conflicting types for collection properties would occur
17:27:01 [alanr]
why?
17:27:12 [msmith]
q+ to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:27:34 [IanH]
q?
17:27:37 [alanr]
"messy" is subjective
17:27:41 [MarkusK]
Boris: I do think that having an explicit type for rdf:first would be no good modelling practice
17:27:51 [ivan]
q+
17:27:53 [alanr]
then owl full
17:27:59 [m_schnei]
a shadow vocabulary for lists can be used /always/ by users - no need to say anything about it
17:28:04 [MarkusK]
... ontologies should not contain declarations for such properties, and I would rather like to not have it
17:28:14 [bijan]
Subjective considerations aren't invalid (as we've seen :))
17:28:15 [alanr]
q+
17:28:20 [ivan]
ack msmith
17:28:20 [Zakim]
msmith, you wanted to ask what use case shadow vocab addresses
17:28:37 [alanr]
shadow was for internal use
17:28:38 [bijan]
Interop
17:28:47 [IanH]
q?
17:28:52 [MarkusK]
MSmith: I do not agree with Boris: I would allow users to define types for rd:type
17:29:01 [alanr]
yes
17:29:02 [MarkusK]
... I see no use case for a shadow vocabulary though
17:29:05 [alanr]
yes
17:29:07 [bmotik]
q+
17:29:15 [alanr]
reverse mapping
17:29:18 [alanr]
fixes this
17:29:31 [alanr]
not
17:29:35 [ivan]
ack ivan
17:29:36 [msmith]
The first scribing above is the opposite of what I intended to say. I agree with Boris exactly.
17:29:50 [alanr]
billions and billions
17:29:53 [msmith]
yes
17:29:54 [alanr]
served
17:29:56 [MarkusK]
Oh, sorry!
17:30:11 [MarkusK]
Please fix this, I misheard you:22 [bijan]
q+
17:30:24 [IanH]
q?
17:30:25 [pfps]
q+
17:30:31 [ivan]
ack alanr
17:30:35 [msmith]
thank you, I will verify the correct version is in the minutes
17:30:52 [MarkusK]
AlanR: the shadow vocabulary would be for our own serialisation, not for users
17:31:06 [IanH]
q?
17:31:21 [MarkusK]
... restricting uses of rdf:first in a certain way may still be better than not allowing it at all
17:32:17 [msmith]
I am now confused about the intended use of the "shadow vocabulary"
17:32:18 [IanH]
q?
17:32:32 [ivan]
msmith: you are not the only one:-)
17:32:58 [ivan]
ack bmotik
17:33:05 [alanr]
idea is that we use owl:first, owl:next owl:nil in our serialization
17:33:29 [MarkusK]
Boris: switching from RDF lists to something else in serialisation seems to be no good idea
17:33:30 [ivan]
+1 to boris
17:33:34 [IanH]
q?
17:33:41 [MarkusK]
... many ontologies are also already using RDF lists
17:33:54 [alanr]
I'd like the backwards compatibility case spelled out clearly, please
17:34:01 [MarkusK]
... I think it is not a major backward compatibility issue
17:34:07 [bijan]
I think mike was looking for the utility of the shadow vocabulary
17:34:15 [bijan]
I wonder that so many people can't understand mike :)
17:34:59 [IanH]
q?
17:35:25 [MarkusK]
Boris: I proposed the shadow vocabulary, so that users are freed of some burdon reinventing vocabulary for standard tasks
17:35:29 [alanr]
can't introduce it to the rdfs users - they are the ones that we want to bring in to the fold
17:35:38 [ivan]
+1 again to Boris
17:35:41 [MarkusK]
... but the drawback is that we get into modelling discussions here
17:35:42 [IanH]
q?
17:35:59 [MarkusK]
... we cannot really reason about lists logically
17:36:09 [alanr]
q+ to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:36:13 [IanH]
q?
17:36:23 [alanr]
no no
17:36:29 [alanr]
we are trying to let more rdf be owl
17:36:34 [MarkusK]
... the list is just a part of data, not a true semantic construct
17:36:41 [alanr]
they can all be defined as annotation properties if need be
17:36:41 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:36:41 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:36:43 [IanH]
q?
17:36:47 [ivan]
ack bijan
17:37:12 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I second Boris' concern on the lack of utility of the list vocabulary
17:37:29 [alanr]
this is clearly getting in to the modeling business - we think it is bad modeling, so we will forbid it?
17:37:43 [MarkusK]
... I often suggest to users to not employ RDF collections or containers in OWL ontologies
17:37:47 [IanH]
q?
17:38:10 [m_schnei]
do i understand this right? rdf:first as an annotation property? and if a reasoner throws away all annotations? then there are a lot of unconnected nodes around. :)
17:38:11 [MarkusK]
... in our practical experience, users were willing to use a custom vocabulary to model lists
17:38:28 [bmotik]
Alan, we will prohibit the usage of rdf:List for technical reasons that are not negligible. People can model lists using their own vocabulary if they want.
17:38:41 [MarkusK]
... it is usually easy to migrate RDF lists to some custom vocabulary
17:38:44 [IanH]
q?
17:38:47 [alanr]
I don't see the technical reasons as being very much
17:38:51 [ivan]
ack pfps:41 [sandro]
(owl:ObjectList and owl:DataList, etc.... )
17:39:43 [alanr]
if it can be done unambiguously then great!
17:39:47 [MarkusK]
Ivan: mostly in the serialisation of OWL
17:39:48 [bijan]
sandro, without proper list semantics?
17:39:55 [sandro]
no, with.
17:40:00 [bmotik]
What is the proper list semantics?
17:40:02 [IanH]
q?, T meant.
17:40:19 [bijan]
Since normally lists are well founded and defined with transitive closure
17:40:23 [IanH]
q?
17:40:27 [alanr]
any ontology that uses owl2:first is owl 2
17:40:28 [bmotik]
s/T meant/I meant:13 [bmotik]
q+
17:41:19 [ivan]
ack alanr
17:41:19 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to say we are *not* getting in to modeing. We are getting out of the way of modelers.
17:41:22 [IanH]
q?
17:41:51 [MarkusK]
Alanr: I do not think that we truly need to use a shadow vocabulary
17:42:21 [MarkusK]
... a shadow vocabulary would be closed, hence one can check for occurrences of this vocabulary to decide if a serialisation belongs to OWL 2
17:42:32 [bijan]
17:42:40 [pfps]
if you don't use owl2 vocabulary but do use lists in an object sense, are you in owl1 then?
17:42:56 [IanH]
q?
17:43:08 [sandro]
q+ to support Alan
17:43:10 [bijan]
q+
17:43:15 [alanr]
michael is not here, he supports
17:43:18 [alanr]
markus?
17:43:26 [MarkusK]
... OWL should allow lists as data, since people adopt them due to their syntactic shortness in Turtle and SPARQL
17:43:35 [pfps]
q+
17:43:36 [IanH]
q?
17:44:14 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:44:14 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:44:17 [MarkusK]
AlanR: Michael may also support my position, but is not on the call
17:44:18 [IanH]
q?
17:44:34 [MarkusK]
... I am certainly not convinced by the current arguments against it
17:44:53 [MarkusK]
I have not voiced any oppinion on this issue, I am scribing
17:45:05 [alanr]
sorry - my mistake
17:45:11 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:45:11 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:45:59 [alanr]
17:46:05 [ewallace]
+1 to Sandro's suggestion
17:46:10 [alanr]
exactly
17:46:22 [MarkusK]
Sandro: can we have a straw poll to get some impression here?
17:46:37 [msmith]
alanr, what part of that ontology?
17:46:37 [IanH]
Michael: q?
17:46:42 [IanH]
q?
17:46:43 [pfps]
q?
17:46:43 [MarkusK]
... at least to measure general motivation in the group
17:46:50 [alanr]
hunting - discussion was in email
17:46:54 [pfps]
q-
17:46:58 [MarkusK]
Ian: still some speakers on the queue first
17:47:15 [alanr]
17:47:18 [IanH]
q?
17:47:39 [MarkusK]
Boris: the technical questions seem to be rather severe
17:47:49 [MarkusK]
... changing the vocabulary is not a trivial change
17:47:49 [sandro]
Sandro: proposed strawpoll: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.
17:48:26 [IanH]
q?
17:48:33 [sandro]
q-
17:48:34 [ivan]
ack bmotik
17:48:38 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:48:38 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:48:42 [ivan]
ack bijan
17:48:46 [MarkusK]
... using things like rdf:first in conjunction with OWL constructs like nominals may have unexpected/complex consequences both in OWL DL and OWL Full
17:49:08 [alanr]
Could we get documentation on how Pellet accomodates?
17:49:18 [m_schnei]
in owl full, there isn't any restriction on the use of rdf:first, anyway
17:49:35 [bijan]
See the code :)
17:49:39 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I see a user need for expressing lists, but we can leave it to implementors and future work to properly solve that
17:50:02 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: It would be nice, if we can find a workable technical solution, to support RDF List in OWL DL.
17:50:11 [alanr]
yes, will check code, but if you could give a hint, that would be greatly appreciated ;-)
17:50:13 [sandro]
+1
17:50:15 [alanr]
+1
17:50:16 [bijan]
That's the straw poll?
17:50:22 [msmith]
+1 it would be nice. it doesn't seem feasible
17:50:24 [MarkusK]
+1:30 [bijan]
alanr, re: code, I don't know off hand
17:51:43 [m_schnei]
for me, the question is, whether we can just say /nothing/ about RDF Lists, and it would work
17:51:44 [alanr]
I will volunteer if Michael (S) will
17:52:08 [msmith]
S == Schneider
17:52:11 [MarkusK]
Ian: are there volunteers for trying to solve the problem?
17:52:13 [alanr]
(sm) MSchneider to:53:57 [bijan]
nary!
17:54:14 [IanH]
q?
17:54:16 [m_schnei]
ok, people, I need to stop for about 15 minutes. my battery is down. sorry!
17:54:18 [MarkusK]
Ian: discussion on "at risk" features such as EasyKeys
17:54:23 [m_schnei]
bye for now!
17:54:24 [IanH]
q?
17:54:57 [MarkusK]
... especially regarding whether or not such features should appear in the spec with an appropraite disclaimer
17:55:03 [IanH]
q?
17:55:08 [bijan]
q+
17:55:14 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:55:14 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
17:55:15 [MarkusK]
Ian: Any comments?
17:55:25 [IanH]
q?
17:55:29 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:56:12 [MarkusK]
Bijan: Many discussions are not finished yet at the current state, and we still need to gather more information.
17:56:16 [IanH]
q?
17:56:30 [bmotik]
q+
17:56:44 [MarkusK]
... We need to decide on the current status of each feature, and we can add our concerns to the spec to gather feedback.
17:57:05 [bijan]
17:57:09 [sandro]
+1 Bijan add them now, no need for "At Risk"
17:57:18 [IanH]
q?
17:57:24 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:57:25 [MarkusK]
Bijan: "At risk" comments are not problem, I would like the features to be in the spec in general
17:57:46 [bijan]
q+ to mention spec work
17:57:48 [MarkusK]
Boris: I do not like to add feartures to the spec now that we may remove later on
17:57:50 [IanH]
q?
17:58:06 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:58:06 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to mention spec work
17:58:15 [MarkusK]
... I would prefer to first do some investigations, and then start modifying the spec
17:58:43 [MarkusK]
Bijan: For EasyKeys, extending the spec should not be hard, since the existing text is almost ready for use in the spec
17:59:08 [MarkusK]
... I agree that implementation experiences are good, but adding the features to the spec would still further more feedback.
17:59:13 [IanH]
q?
17:59:23 [MarkusK]
Ian: do you consider the features to be modular?
17:59:41 [MarkusK]
Bijan: EasyKeys and Top/Bottom properties both seem to be modular.
17:59:48 [MarkusK]
Boris: I agree.
17:59:48 [bijan]
yep
17:59:53 [MarkusK]
Ian: Straw poll
18:00:07 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:00:08 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:00:36 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: easy keys and top and bottom roles should be added to spec with comment that they could be removed later if implementation experience is negative
18:00:37 [bmotik]
My main comment is that it is not only the structural spec that changes: most of the documents will need to change.
18:00:45 [bmotik]
But I can live with that
18:00:50 [ivan]
+1
18:00:57 [sandro]
+1
18:00:58 [Achille]
+1
18:00:59 [uli]
+1
18:00:59 [bijan]
Boris, yes, I'm working on bits for rdf mapping and sematncis as well
18:01:00 [Zhe]
+1
18:01:00 [MarkusK]
:38 [bmotik]
Frankly, we don't need a comment.
18:01:39 [alanr]
which can also be read as "is someone looking"
18:01:44 [MarkusK]
Ian: so it seems that it is OK for the group to add both with some comment
18:01:48 [bmotik]
q+
18:01:55 [IanH]
q?
18:02:07 [bijan]
A joint action?
18:02:08 [MarkusK]
Boris: Is that a resolution? Shall we have an action?
18:02:12 [bijan]
We'd need a resolution
18:02:17 [MarkusK]
Ian: I think so.
18:02:19 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:02:19 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:02:25 [alanr]
absolutely
18:02:40 [alanr]
q?
18:02:51 [MarkusK]
Bijan: we first need a resolution.
18:03:34 [MarkusK]
AlanR: we can also consider that again before the next publication.
18:03:34 :03:49 [bijan]
+1
18:03:54 [alanr]
+1
18:03:55 [bmotik]
+1
18:03:58 [MarkusK]
:28 [MarkusK]
s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/:05:08 [MarkusK]
Ian: Issue 109 (XML namespace)
18:05:24 [MarkusK]
.. are there new technical arguments on that?
18:05:29 [IanH]
q?
18:05:33 [uli]
pfff
18:05:36 [bmotik]
-q
18:05:37 [IanH]
ack boris
18:05:41 [MarkusK]
... or shall we just vote?
18:05:45 [bijan]
I do!
18:05:46 [bijan]
I do!
18:05:50 [ivan]
I do!
18:05:56 [ivan]
but I wrote it down
18:05:57 [bijan]
I do more!
18:06:03 [pfps]
I do! I do! (but not as much)
18:06:12 [uli]
I care, but I do we have new arguments
18:06:26 [MarkusK]
AlanR: Ivan and Bijan might be able to reach an agreement.
18:06:49 [MarkusK]
Ivan: Bijan and I tried to compile all pros and cons to support the decision
18:07:16 [IanH]
18:07:42 [ivan]
i did
18:07:44 [uli]
I did
18:07:44 [MarkusK]
Ian: The email is rather long, so we should give people the chance of reading the email:18 [MarkusK]
Ian: Poll on who read the email and who did not..
18:09:13 [alanr]
is BIJAN one of the options?
18:09:19 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:09:23 [bijan]
Ivan did a good job with the email
18:09:24 [alanr]
bijan:someValuesFrom
18:09:41 [m_schnei]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:09:41 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
18:09:45 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:09:45 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:09:52 [MarkusK]
Ian: so the issue will be voted on next week
18:10:10 [IanH]
q?
18:10:32 [IanH]
q?
18:10:39 [IanH]
q?
18:10:45 [bmotik]
+1 to resolve these issues
18:10:48 [MarkusK]
Ian: Issues 21 and 24
18:11:03 [MarkusK]
... are we ready to try to resolve those?
18:11:16 [pfps]
q+
18:11:20 [IanH]
q?
18:11:40 [MarkusK]
AlanR: I think we should announce it on the agenda for next week
18:12:01 [alanr]
24 reject, no inconsistencies
18:12:17 [MarkusK]
Pfps: when putting the issues on the agenda, the concrete proposals should be made explicit as well, especially for Issue 24
18:12:41 [MarkusK]
Ian: Alan and I will prepare a wording for both proposals
18:12:51 [MarkusK]
Ian: Issue 111
18:12:54 [alanr]
q+
18:12:55 [bijan]
q+
18:13:02 [MarkusK]
... User intent signaling
18:13:05 [pfps]
q-
18:13:06 [IanH]
q?
18:13:11 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:13:11 , alanr,
18:13:14 [Zakim]
... bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)
18:13:15 [ivan]
ack alanr
18:13:20 [IanH]
q?
18:13:47 [bmotik]
+q
18:13:53 [IanH]
q?
18:13:59 [MarkusK]
AlanR: I thought of the case where someone writes an ontology that needs to be interpreted correctly
18:14:03 [sandro]
PRESENT: IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli (muted), msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau (muted), calvanese (muted), Achille, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Zhe, alanr, bijan, JeffPan, clu (muted), m_schnei (muted)
18:14:11 [IanH]
q?
18:14:27 [MarkusK]
... the idea of "intents" is not so clear in some cases
18:14:35 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:35 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:14:41 [IanH]
q?
18:14:46 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:14:58 [MarkusK]
... the main use case I see is really when one requires specific conclusions to be drawn and specifies an intent for that.
18:15:16 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I raised this issue but would like to withdraw it now
18:15:35 [alanr]
Sandro, were you not concerned about this one too?
18:15:50 [sandro]
absolutely
18:15:59 [MarkusK]
... I agree that the use of "intents" is not always clear
18:16:21 [MarkusK]
... having intents in ontologies may eventually create more noise
18:16:49 [sandro]
Bijan: you can always do the work-around of including an OWL-full tautology in your DL, if you want to tell people it's OWL-Full.
18:17:09 [alanr]
one question is whether I must use wsdl for message
18:17:22 [IanH]
q?
18:17:30 [sandro]
q+
18:17:31 [MarkusK]
Bijan: overall, the issue appears to get more complicated than first expected
18:17:47 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:17:47 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:17:48 [MarkusK]
... thus I propose to defer that until we may have more experiences
18:18:19 [bijan]
alanr, if not wsdl, some description, perhaps english
18:18:32 [IanH]
q?
18:18:36 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:18:40 [m_schnei]
conventions might arise outside the WG, where people use an rdfs:comment on the ontology header which tells the profile
18:18:41 [IanH]
ack sandro
18:18:43 [bijan]
Insane? Moi?
18:18:53 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:18:53 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:19:22 [IanH]
q?
18:19:22 [alanr]
what about dl versus r?
18:19:22 [uli]
q+
18:19:46 [IanH]
q?
18:19:47 [bmotik]
Not at the DL side:16 [IanH]
q?
18:20:26 [m_schnei]
OWL R Full is both a /syntactic/ AND a /semantic/ subset of Full
18:20:26 [IanH]
q?
18:20:36 [m_schnei]
q+
18:20:37 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I thought that OWL-R would be a syntactic fragment that entails all consequences that the larger fragments would entail
18:20:48 [alanr]
we discussed this in detail at the last f2f
18:21:00 [alanr]
so patient...
18:21:01 [bijan]
Then I didn't understand it in detail at the last f2f
18:21:02 [MarkusK]
... if it is not true for OWL-R Full, I would consider this a bug in OWL-R Full
18:21:06 [bmotik]
I can
18:21:06 [bijan]
Are there examples?
18:21:31 [m_schnei]
q+ on explaining the difference
18:21:41 [pfps]
sounds good to me
18:22:00 [IanH]
q?
18:22:07 [m_schnei]
q+ on explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
18:22:10 [MarkusK]
Ian: In OWL-R Full one can state arbitrary DL statements, on account of being "Full", but it would not entail the DL consequences
18:22:11 [m_schnei]
q+ explaining OWL R Full vs. OWL Full
18:22:12 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
18:22:13 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
18:22:14 [IanH]
q?
18:22:30 [MarkusK]
Bijan: I would consider OWL-R Full to be broken then
18:22:31 [IanH]
q?
18:22:37 [IanH]
ack uli
18:22:47 [MarkusK]
Uli: there seems to be a misunderstanding
18:23:11 [MarkusK]
... Sandro asked whether OWL Full ontologies should always signal this
18:23:35 [alanr]
what about owl-r full versus owl-full
18:23:39 [IanH]
q?
18:23:43 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:23:43 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:23:43 [MarkusK]
... Bijan referred to the option of signalling OWL Full if this interpretation as OWL Full is considered crucial
18:23:45 [uli]
zakim, mute me
18:23:45 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
18:23:50 [IanH]
q?
18:23:56 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:24:19 [MarkusK]
Michael: OWL-R Full still lacks some syntactic features of OWL Full
18:24:38 [pfps]
q+ to ask what syntactic features are missing in OWL-R Full
18:24:46 [IanH]
q?
18:24:53 [m_schnei]
q-
18:24:56 [IanH]
q?
18:25:04 [MarkusK]
... I can give an example, but it is probably better to give it by email
18:25:17 [MarkusK]
Pfps: What is not in OWL-R Full
18:25:21 [bijan]
Obviously we don't have a claer understanding!
18:25:24 [MarkusK]
Michael: Nominals are not in?
18:25:45 [MarkusK]
Ian: Syntactically nominals are allowed
18:25:50 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:25:50 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:25:52 [bcuencagrau]
The OWL-R Full specification is telling you what you are allowed to entail
18:26:03 [MarkusK]
Michael: Indeed
18:26:11 [MarkusK]
Any other business?:35 [Zakim]
-Evan_Wallace
18:26:38 [JeffPan]
bye
18:26:39 [bijan]
That wasn't my undersatnding
18:26:40 [Zakim]
-bmotik
18:26:41 [msmith]
bye, thanks all
18:26:41 [Zakim]
-bcuencagrau
18:26:41 [MarkusK]
Adjourn
18:26:42 [Zakim]
-Achille
18:26:43 [Zakim]
-msmith
18:26:43 [Zhe]
second peter
18:26:43 [Zakim]
-JeffPan
18:26:45 [clu]
bye
18:26:45 [Zakim]
-Peter_Patel-Schneider
18:26:46 [Zakim]
-IanH
18:26:46 [Zhe]
bye
18:26:48 [Zakim]
-Sandro
18:26:49 [Zakim]
-uli
18:26:51 [Zakim]
-calvanese
18:26:53 [Zakim]
-Zhe
18:26:55 [bijan]
So the realtionship between owl dl and owl full is very much unlike that between owl-r dl and owl-r full!
18:27:00 [MarkusK]
So what exactly is the process for publishing minutes now?
18:27:01 [IanH]
Sandro, do we need to do anything for the minutes now.
18:27:04 [Zakim]
-m_schnei
18:27:05 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
18:27:05 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
18:27:06 [Zakim]
-Ivan
18:27:09 [calvanese]
calvanese has left #owl
18:27:10 [IanH]
or does it all happen by magic?
18:27:10 [sandro]
IanH, I'll talk to MarkusK about it.
18:27:12 [alanr]
alanr has left #owl
18:27:14 [Zakim]
-clu
18:27:15 [msmith]
msmith has left #owl
18:27:22 [IanH]
OK -- thanks.
18:27:22 [sandro]
MarkusK, hold on a minute....
18:27:25 [MarkusK]
ok
18:27:45 [Zakim]
-alanr
18:27:50 [Zakim]
-bijan
18:30:16 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
18:30:17 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
18:30:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were IanH, bmotik, Ivan, Evan_Wallace, MarkusK, uli, msmith, Sandro, bcuencagrau, calvanese, Alan_Ruttenberg, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Achille, Zhe, JeffPan, alanr, bijan,
18:30:21 [Zakim]
... clu, m_schnei
18:32:43 [sandro]
MarkusK, can I just e-mail you in a bit, when it's ready?
18:32:54 [MarkusK]
sure
18:33:22 [MarkusK]
bye
19:54:06 [clu]
clu has joined #owl
20:35:33 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
20:42:15 [clu]
clu has joined #owl