text: IRC log of owl on 2007-11-21
  Timestamps are in UTC.
  17:56:56 [RRSAgent]
  RRSAgent has joined #owl
  17:56:56 [RRSAgent]
  logging to
  17:56:58 [Zakim]
  +??P4
  17:57:15 [Rinke]
  ah, that looks better
  17:57:25 [Rinke]
  ScribeNick: Rinke
  17:58:05 [MichaelSmith]
  rrsagent, make record public
  17:58:11 [bmotik]
  bmotik has joined #owl
  17:58:17 [Rinke]
  zakim, who's here
  17:58:17 [Zakim]
  Rinke, you need to end that query with '?'
  17:58:23 [Rinke]
  zakim, who's here?
  17:58:23 [Zakim]
  On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK
  17:58:24 [Zakim]
  On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
  17:58:33 [bcuencag]
  bcuencag has joined #owl
  17:58:52 [Zakim]
  +??P6
  17:59:09 [uli]
  uli has joined #owl
  17:59:14 [Carsten]
  Carsten has joined #owl
  17:59:17 [Zakim]
  +MartinD
  17:59:20 [bmotik]
  Zakim, ??P6 is bmotik
  17:59:20 [Zakim]
  +bmotik; got it
  17:59:26 [jeremy]
  jeremy has joined #owl
  17:59:27 [Zakim]
  +IanH
  17:59:31 [bmotik]
  Zakim, mute me
  17:59:31 [Zakim]
  bmotik should now be muted
  17:59:33 [MartinD]
  zakim, mute me
  17:59:33 [Zakim]
  MartinD should now be muted
  18:00:05 [Zakim]
  -bmotik
  18:00:23 [Zakim]
  +??P9
  18:00:49 [Zakim]
  +Alan
  18:01:02 [Zakim]
  +??P12
  18:01:03 [uli]
  zakim, ??P9 is me
  18:01:03 [Zakim]
  +uli; got it
  18:01:09 [Zakim]
  +Sandro
  18:01:13 [bmotik]
  Zakim, ??P12 is bmotik
  18:01:13 [Zakim]
  +bmotik; got it
  18:01:16 [bmotik]
  Zakim, mute me
  18:01:16 [Zakim]
  bmotik should now be muted
  18:01:17 [Zakim]
  +??P11
  18:01:39 [Zakim]
  +??P18
  18:01:48 [vit]
  Zakim, ??P18 is me
  18:01:48 [Zakim]
  +vit; got it
  18:01:58 [IanH]
  zakim, who is here?
  18:01:58 [Zakim]
  On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit
  18:02:00 [Zakim]
  On IRC I see jeremy, Carsten, uli, bcuencag, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, MichaelSmith, MarkusK, vit, bijan, Rinke, IanH, MartinD, sandro, trackbot-ng
  18:02:03 [alanr]
  alanr has joined #owl
  18:02:16 [ewallace]
  ewallace has joined #owl
  18:02:27 [alanr]
  zakik, who is on the call?
  18:02:35 [alanr]
  zakim, who is on the call?
  18:02:35 [Zakim]
  On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit
  18:02:40 [Zakim]
  +??P19
  18:03:03 [alanr]
  calling in on cell phone too, for a few minutes, so I can fetch a coffee...
  18:03:23 [pfps]
  pfps has joined #owl
  18:03:32 [zhe]
  zhe has joined #owl
  18:03:35 [sandro]
  "Zakim, ??19 is me"
  18:03:46 [Zakim]
  +??P20
  18:03:50 [pfps]
  zakim, ??p20 is me
  18:03:50 [Zakim]
  +pfps; got it
  18:03:51 [bcuencag]
  zakim, ??P19 is me
  18:03:52 [Zakim]
  +bcuencag; got it
  18:03:54 [Zakim]
  +Alan_Ruttenberg
  18:03:56 [pfps]
  zakim, mute me
  18:03:56 [Zakim]
  pfps should now be muted
  18:04:00 [Zakim]
  +??P3
  18:04:06 [IanH]
  zakim, who is here?
  18:04:06 [Zakim]
  On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, ??P11, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),
  18:04:09 [Zakim]
  ... Alan_Ruttenberg, ??P3
  18:04:11 :04:12 [Carsten]
  zakim, ??p3 is me
  18:04:14 [Zakim]
  +Carsten; got it
  18:04:20 [Carsten]
  zakim, mut me
  18:04:20 [Zakim]
  I don't understand 'mut me', Carsten
  18:04:25 [Carsten]
  zakim, mute me
  18:04:25 [Zakim]
  Carsten should now be muted
  18:04:33 [Rinke]
  zakim, mute me
  18:04:33 [Zakim]
  Rinke should now be muted
  18:04:48 [Zakim]
  +Evan_Wallace
  18:06:05 [sandro]
  "Zakim, ??P11 is me"
  18:06:08 [sandro]
  like that.
  18:06:17 [zhe]
  Zakim, ??P11 is me
  18:06:17 [Zakim]
  +zhe; got it
  18:06:26 [IanH]
  zakim, who is here?
  18:06:26 [Zakim]
  On the phone I see bijan (muted), Rinke (muted), MIchaelSmith, MarkusK (muted), MartinD (muted), IanH, uli (muted), Alan, bmotik (muted), Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps (muted),
  18:06:29 [Zakim]
  ... Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten (muted), Evan_Wallace
  18:06:30 :07:04 [Rinke]
  IanH: covered Role call
  18:07:20 [sandro]
  scribenick: Rinke
  18:07:25 [Rinke]
  ok, thanks
  18:07:30 [sandro]
  RRSAgent, pointer?
  18:07:30 [RRSAgent]
  See
  18:07:32 [Rinke]
  IanH: covered Role call
  18:07:43 [Rinke]
  ... any amendments?
  18:07:50 [Rinke]
  ... no amendments
  18:07:56 [Rinke]
  PROPOSED: Accept Previous Previous Minutes
  18:08:00 [bijan]
  Are we going to cover more issues if we finsih the one's listed
  18:08:05 [bijan]
  ?
  18:08:06 [jeremy]
  they were rather late
  18:08:10 [sandro]
  Present: bijan, Rinke, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, IanH, uli, Alan, bmotik, Sandro, zhe, vit, bcuencag, pfps, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace
  18:08:21 [pfps]
  Ian: previous *PREVIOUS* minutes
  18:08:30 [jeremy]
  (ok)
  18:08:53 [JeffP]
  JeffP has joined #owl
  18:08:53 [MartinD]
  7th
  18:08:54 [sandro]
  18:09:00 [Zakim]
  -Alan_Ruttenberg
  18:09:06 [sandro]
  18:09:12 [alanr]
  back
  18:09:28 [Rinke]
  ewallace: previous previous minutes list me as evan wallface
  18:10:08 [Zakim]
  +JeffP
  18:10:16 [Rinke]
  sandro: accept them pending the change
  18:10:38 [IanH]
  PROPOSED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name
  18:11:01 [MichaelSmith]
  +1 to accept previous previous minutes
  18:11:02 [Rinke]
  sandro: fixed them
  18:11:12 [Rinke]
  ACCEPTED: Accept previous previous minutes module fixing Evan's name
  18:11:22 [bijan]
  I just updated the attendance list to add Uli
  18:11:24 [bijan]
  Who was missing
  18:11:25 [Rinke]
  PROPOSED: Accept Previous Minutes
  18:11:27 [jeremy]
  SANDRO - please reply to prtvate message
  18:11:31 [alanr]
  I approve
  18:11:34 [Rinke]
  sandro: haven't been there long enough to be reviewed
  18:11:43 [pfps]
  +1 wait
  18:11:51 [alanr]
  +1
  18:11:54 [Rinke]
  IanH: who has reviewed them?
  18:11:58 [uli]
  i haven't
  18:11:58 [bijan]
  I just did
  18:12:07 [Rinke]
  had a quick look
  18:12:12 [Rinke]
  IanH: leave them to next week
  18:12:21 [Rinke]
  ... action item status?
  18:12:28 [pfps]
  aren't minutes supposed to be ready in 48 hours or less?
  18:12:28 [Rinke]
  sandro: still mulling it over
  18:12:40 [Rinke]
  IanH: move to next week
  18:12:48 [Rinke]
  alanr: did the syntax document (Action 15)
  18:13:00 [Rinke]
  IanH: action 17 qname approval
  18:13:17 [Rinke]
  MichaelSmith: email has been sent, asking about schema components status
  18:13:20 [sandro]
  yes, PFPS, that's the normal convention. In this case the fault was mostly mine. :-(
  18:13:21 [MichaelSmith]
  In
  pfps found text in XML Schema spec
  built-in datatypes and facets are both given URIs
  18:13:23 [alanr]
  Evan, are you willing to write up the steps to clean up the minutes? (on
  )
  18:13:34 [Rinke]
  ... most of the issue has been addressed because peter found relevant parts
  18:13:47 [Rinke]
  ... action was done
  18:13:52 [Zakim]
  + +078910aaaa
  18:13:57 [Rinke]
  IanH: action 18, brain dump?
  18:14:03 [alanr]
  continue
  18:14:05 [Rinke]
  alanr: haven't dumped, postponed to next week
  18:14:18 [jeremy]
  Zakim, aaaa is me
  18:14:18 [Zakim]
  +jeremy; got it
  18:14:21 [Rinke]
  IanH: f2f agenda
  18:14:43 [IanH]
  18:14:44 [Rinke]
  IanH: have collected a list of items to be discussed at the f2f, please look at the agenda
  18:14:55 [bijan]
  F2F agenda:
  18:15:04 [Rinke]
  ... currently on day 1 an overview of language features, imports
  18:15:10 [bijan]
  Datatypes?
  18:15:11 [Rinke]
  ... two other topics dl and full alignment
  18:15:29 [Rinke]
  ... if you have comments, topics, then you might want to suggest them
  18:15:37 [pfps]
  suggest F2F topics how?
  18:15:37 [Rinke]
  ... the schedule is going to be quite tight!
  18:15:49 [pfps]
  q+
  18:15:54 [Rinke]
  alanr: where did you put the agenda?
  18:15:57 [pfps]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:15:57 [Zakim]
  pfps should no longer be muted
  18:16:06 [JeffP]
  q?
  18:16:11 [Rinke]
  IanH: link from meetings page, in the irc as well
  18:16:33 [Rinke]
  ... cannot guarantee that every topic will be added
  18:16:49 [Rinke]
  alanr: if you feel that any knowledge needs to be made clear, we can put it in the tutorial
  18:16:56 [bijan]
  What's the tutorial?
  18:17:00 [bijan]
  When is it?
  18:17:07 [Rinke]
  IanH: over the course of the next week we will fix the agenda?
  18:17:14 [pfps]
  q-
  18:17:18 [Rinke]
  (who's this?)
  18:17:21 [pfps]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:17:21 [Zakim]
  pfps was not muted, pfps
  18:17:43 [Rinke]
  ewallace: would like to discuss the Declaration
  18:17:50 [Rinke]
  ... just the discussion of it
  18:17:52 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:17:52 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  18:17:54 [bijan]
  q+
  18:18:12 [Rinke]
  bijan: what's the tutorial?
  18:18:31 [Rinke]
  alanr: orientation, looking who's coming, having a walkthrough of the specs, and doing a Q&A
  18:18:42 [Rinke]
  ... if you have ideas of what should be covered, let us know
  18:18:59 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  18:18:59 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  18:19:00 [Rinke]
  bianr: is that the same as Overview of language features?
  18:19:03 [Rinke]
  alanr: yes
  18:19:09 [Rinke]
  IanH: are we done?
  18:19:10 [sandro]
  chair: Ian
  18:19:12 [bijan]
  s/bianr/bijan
  18:19:29 [Rinke]
  IanH: alan and I will prepare a more concrete agenda
  18:19:36 [Rinke]
  IanH: 2nd F2F meeting
  18:19:37 [bijan]
  Perhaps, ian should send an email to solicit agenda topics for f2f?
  18:19:43 [IanH]
  18:19:50 [Rinke]
  ... quite a few have commented already
  18:20:05 [JeffP]
  Beijing
  18:20:10 [Rinke]
  ... any people on the phone who would like to add their response before we come to a decision?
  18:20:16 [pfps]
  zakim, mute me
  18:20:16 [Zakim]
  pfps should now be muted
  18:20:30 [alanr]
  q+ to go back to scribing for a second
  18:20:32 [Rinke]
  ... uli, boris, bernardo... you didn't respond yet?
  18:20:40 [bmotik]
  No preference
  18:20:41 [uli]
  oups - i thought i had: preference for washington
  18:20:47 [bcuencag]
  beijing or DC
  18:20:48 [Rinke]
  ... any preference Washington, Bejing, Sydney
  18:20:59 [Rinke]
  JeffP: beijing
  18:21:00 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:21:00 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  18:21:05 [MartinD]
  prob. washington for me
  18:21:10 [MichaelSmith]
  I prefer DC, at risk for Beijing, no to sydney
  18:21:23 [Carsten]
  I can probably neither come to Washington nor Beijing, but Sydney may be possible
  18:21:46 [vit]
  no preference for me for F2F2
  18:21:52 [Rinke]
  alanr: will put the raw responses on the voting list
  18:21:52 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  18:21:52 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  18:22:11 [Carsten]
  two
  18:22:17 [Rinke]
  IanH: it is overwhelming for Washington... two people Beijing, one Sydney, everybody else Washington
  18:22:35 [Rinke]
  IanH: it's a no brainer... almost unanimous for Washington
  18:22:47 [alanr]
  +1
  18:22:50 [Rinke]
  ... peter can go ahead with the OWLED colocation thing? That's my proposal
  18:23:03 [IanH]
  PROPOSED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC
  18:23:07 [alanr]
  +1
  18:23:09 [bmotik]
  +1
  18:23:10 [Rinke]
  +1
  18:23:11 [MarkusK]
  +1
  18:23:13 [sandro]
  +1
  18:23:15 [MartinD]
  +1
  18:23:16 [ewallace]
  +1
  18:23:17 [MichaelSmith]
  +1
  18:23:31 [Rinke]
  IanH: lots of agreement, no disagreement
  18:23:43 [sandro]
  RESOLVED: F2F2 will be in Washington DC
  18:23:48 [Rinke]
  IanH: finished with the admin
  18:24:10 [JeffP]
  q+ have we decided the dates on F2F2?
  18:24:12 [bijan]
  +1 to DC
  18:24:15 [alanr]
  ack alanr
  18:24:15 [Zakim]
  alanr, you wanted to go back to scribing for a second
  18:24:19 [Rinke]
  alanr: if Conrad could put his work on the cleanups on the wiki
  18:24:23 [bijan]
  q-
  18:24:23 [JeffP]
  q?
  18:24:32 [Rinke]
  IanH: task forces stuff
  18:24:49 [Rinke]
  IanH: it would be useful to get some feedback from them
  18:25:03 [Rinke]
  IanH: jeremy to say something about the UFDTF
  18:25:05 [IanH]
  ?q
  18:25:09 [IanH]
  q?
  18:25:10 [bijan]
  Yes he is :)
  18:25:27 [sandro]
  q+ testing zakim
  18:25:28 [Rinke]
  jeremy: let me think
  18:25:31 [sandro]
  q?
  18:25:34 [sandro]
  ack
  18:25:34 [Rinke]
  ... can I go second?
  18:25:41 [sandro]
  ack testing
  18:25:43 [sandro]
  ack zakim
  18:25:45 [Rinke]
  IanH: Rich annotations? Bijan?
  18:25:53 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:25:53 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  18:26:07 [Rinke]
  bijan: I wrote up a proposal, some use cases, not finished
  18:26:18 [Rinke]
  ... I ran them by several people, e.g. Alan Rector
  18:26:40 [Rinke]
  ... somebody wanted to use them for patterns (value partitions)
  18:26:49 [Rinke]
  ... that's fine in my proposal, haven't written it up
  18:27:01 [Rinke]
  ... (Jeremy?) using reification for axiom annotations
  18:27:07 [jeremy]
  oooh
  18:27:23 [Rinke]
  ... I guess in that exchange with Boris one option would be to ... the anotations
  18:27:30 [alanr]
  +1 on importance of axiom annotations
  18:27:35 [Rinke]
  ... would remove a lot of the usefullness of annotations
  18:27:43 [IanH]
  q?
  18:27:48 [alanr]
  q+ to mention issue with rich annotations
  18:27:52 [Rinke]
  bijan: proposal is 90% done...
  18:28:03 [Rinke]
  ... would be nice to get some sense of what we're going to do with it
  18:28:12 [Rinke]
  IanH: there is a fairly wellformed proposal on the table
  18:28:17 [Rinke]
  ... please give some comments
  18:28:21 [MichaelSmith]
  the current proposal is
  correct?
  18:28:26 [bijan]
  Yes
  18:28:33 [IanH]
  q?
  18:28:37 [Rinke]
  alanr: concerned about the multiple domains of interpretation/ multiple worlds/ multiple models aspect of it
  18:28:41 [IanH]
  ack alanr
  18:28:42 [Zakim]
  alanr, you wanted to mention issue with rich annotations
  18:28:59 [Rinke]
  ... part of the concern was that it's fairly new, and unexplored... want a warm fuzzy feeling that it's well understood
  18:29:10 [bcuencag]
  zakim, mute me
  18:29:10 [Zakim]
  bcuencag should now be muted
  18:29:18 [Rinke]
  ... second issue is that I don't know whether and how it would affect the RDF semantics
  18:29:38 [Rinke]
  ... could you comment on how it affects the OWL Full aspect of it, in the RDF sense
  18:29:43 [IanH]
  q?
  18:29:48 [Rinke]
  bijan: I have not realised an RDF mapping
  18:30:03 [Rinke]
  ... one could use different extensions: multiple files with pointers analogous to owl:imports
  18:30:12 [Rinke]
  ... minimal mutilation of everything, and easy to understand
  18:30:26 [Rinke]
  ... other than that: is that enough to get you going?
  18:30:43 [Rinke]
  alanr: yes, just to say where I am on it: how much of the proposal is dependent on that
  18:31:03 [Rinke]
  ... is that the central part of the proposal? If it's left out, what will be left?
  18:31:20 [Rinke]
  bijan: it's a major part... another part is the idea to have blobs of annotations instead of nested or chained
  18:31:31 [Rinke]
  ... in the current anotations have to booted in the axiom
  18:31:51 [Rinke]
  ... a lot of people I talked to want to be able toa ssociate fairly elaborate structures to an entity or axiom
  18:32:08 [jeremy]
  q+ to comment
  18:32:16 [Rinke]
  IanH: until more people have had a chance to have a look at that... we might as well leave that
  18:32:28 [alanr]
  we do have it on f2f
  18:32:31 [Rinke]
  bijan: suggest that it becomes an official agenda item
  18:32:40 [Rinke]
  IanH: action item to go and read it?
  18:33:06 [IanH]
  q?
  18:33:07 [Rinke]
  bijan: if I know its' going to be on the agenda I could (re)start an email discussion about this
  18:33:14 [Rinke]
  sandro: no need to do an action item
  18:33:22 [Rinke]
  bijan: if its on the agenda, I will start a discussion
  18:33:33 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  18:33:33 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  18:33:41 [Rinke]
  IanH: why don't you start a discussion, and if there's a significant response to that we can put it on the agenda
  18:33:42 [IanH]
  q?
  18:33:48 [Rinke]
  alanr: who are the stakeholders on this?
  18:33:56 [Rinke]
  ... and have an action item to review this?
  18:34:05 [Rinke]
  ... for them (that holds for me)
  18:34:11 [MichaelSmith]
  I'm a stakeholder and will review
  18:34:13 [Rinke]
  IanH: anyone else?
  18:34:16 [pfps]
  I'll stick my hand up
  18:34:26 [bmotik]
  I will read it by next week. Does this cound as a review?
  18:34:34 [Rinke]
  alanr: more strongly, if you think it's important and you might object, you're a stakeholder
  18:34:35 [alanr]
  q?
  18:34:49 [IanH]
  ack jeremy
  18:34:49 [Zakim]
  jeremy, you wanted to comment
  18:34:52 [Rinke]
  IanH: why not let jeremy speak, and let people mull over whether they are stakeholders
  18:35:11 [Rinke]
  jeremy: by having the OWL Full semantics in multiple documents is very complicated
  18:35:15 [JeffP]
  JeffP has joined #owl
  18:35:17 [alanr]
  q?
  18:35:18 [Rinke]
  ... far away from owl 1.0
  18:35:28 [alanr]
  q+ to see if I understand bijan's idea
  18:35:40 [ewallace]
  could we ask for a decision on this next week
  18:35:42 [Rinke]
  ... out of court. More about 'lets' put some wacky stuff in' instead of a conservative improvement over 1.0
  18:35:55 [bmotik]
  If I've understood things correctly, the idea is not to have one semantics distributed over different documents (Bijan, please correct me if I'm wrong).
  18:35:55 [Rinke]
  IanH: you're talking yourself into being a stakeholder
  18:36:04 [uli]
  jeremy, as usual, I can't understand what you are saying -- could you please talk louder?
  18:36:15 [Rinke]
  jeremy: just articulating how a large part of the OWL community would feel about this move away from 1.0
  18:36:26 [Rinke]
  (me neither)
  18:36:36 [bmotik]
  The idea is that you just have different, independent documents. They have nothing to do with each other. You can, however, query them together using, say, SPARQL.
  18:36:46 [Rinke]
  jeremy: this seems a big change from 1.0 in terms of the OWL Full semantics
  18:36:53 [Rinke]
  ... sounds like a non starter (?)
  18:36:53 [IanH]
  q?
  18:36:59 [IanH]
  ack alanr
  18:36:59 [Zakim]
  alanr, you wanted to see if I understand bijan's idea
  18:37:06 [IanH]
  q?
  18:37:12 [Rinke]
  alanr: by putting it into different files, we are just making things independently and unconnected
  18:37:22 [Rinke]
  ... each separately is an OWL Full document
  18:37:22 [bijan]
  that's fine
  18:37:37 [bijan]
  That's one reasonable way to go yes
  18:37:41 [Rinke]
  ... that correct bijan?
  18:37:51 [IanH]
  q?
  18:37:52 [Rinke]
  jeremy: strikes me as a 'big' change (in the eye of the beholder)
  18:37:57 [Rinke]
  ... mouses and elephants
  18:38:08 [Rinke]
  IanH: clearly needs to be discussed in some more detail
  18:38:12 [bmotik]
  But this is really no change: each document is still interpreted as it was interpreted in OWL 1.0. You can use either Full or DL semantics, moreover.
  18:38:15 [alanr]
  +1 to draft Jeremy as stakeholder :)
  18:38:22 [Rinke]
  ... perhaps jeremy and bijan could exchange some emails on this topic?
  18:38:30 [Rinke]
  ... then the rest of us can eavesdrop
  18:38:34 [bijan]
  Fine
  18:38:36 [Rinke]
  ... how would that be?
  18:38:39 [IanH]
  q?
  18:38:45 [alanr]
  I can be on call too...
  18:38:51 [alanr]
  if desired
  18:38:59 [Rinke]
  jeremy: not very enthusiastic, at least I get payd for it
  18:39:06 [Rinke]
  IanH: I'll take that as a yes
  18:39:13 [Rinke]
  ... move on to datatypes
  18:39:25 [bijan]
  There was a telecon!
  18:39:32 [Rinke]
  IanH: a lot of email traffic, no taskforce...
  18:39:33 [bijan]
  There is!
  18:39:42 [alanr]
  q?
  18:39:45 [Rinke]
  alanr: summarise where we came to in the first meeting
  18:39:48 [MichaelSmith]
  Cleaned up datatype telecon minutes at
  18:39:48 [Rinke]
  (who's this?)
  18:39:55 [alanr]
  Mike smith
  18:40:35 [Rinke]
  MichaelSmith: two types of external datatypes... those that include ID's which can be externally referenced, and those that can't
  18:40:53 [Rinke]
  ... on the first we are waiting on the XML Schema wg
  18:40:54 [IanH]
  q?
  18:41:07 [Rinke]
  (on the second)
  18:41:16 [MichaelSmith]
  to modify structural specification to require the approach described in
  when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes
  18:41:29 [Rinke]
  ... moving forward on the approach outlined in the best practices document for the case where we do have IDs
  18:41:47 [Rinke]
  IanH: what kinds of things wouldn't we be able to do without ID's
  18:41:48 [jeremy]
  referencing externalk datatypes defined by someone else
  18:41:51 [alanr]
  big file of anonymous datatypes
  18:41:54 [alanr]
  external
  18:42:15 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: perfectly valid xml schema exists without IDs... if you want to reuse such schema types you have a problem
  18:42:17 [IanH]
  q?
  18:42:22 [Rinke]
  ... on the semantic web
  18:42:27 [bijan]
  So one would have to cut and paste that datatype definition into a different file
  18:42:39 [Rinke]
  ... if the author does have the semweb in mind, we have a solution.
  18:42:44 [Rinke]
  ... from the best practices
  18:42:52 [Rinke]
  IanH: we won't lose expressivity, just some rework
  18:42:57 [alanr]
  literal inclusion of the file within the OWL file
  18:43:11 [bijan]
  Yes
  18:43:13 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: yes, about reusing existing XML schema definitions
  18:43:17 [Rinke]
  IanH: unary datatypes?
  18:43:31 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: yes, the external datatypes only discussed about unary datatypes
  18:43:40 [Rinke]
  ... one other thing, that we discussed
  18:43:53 [Rinke]
  ... don't know if we want to put that in to a proposal first or...
  18:44:03 [Rinke]
  IanH: try us with the other item first
  18:44:07 [jeremy]
  (at the telecon - some e-mail traffic on n-ary)
  18:44:20 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: inline xml as opposed to what is in the member submission
  18:44:21 [MichaelSmith]
  Issues with XML Schema in thread starting at
  and with attempted summary at
  18:44:28 [Rinke]
  ... I think it hit some kind of completion point
  18:44:34 [Rinke]
  ... we understand what could be done,
  18:44:50 [IanH]
  q?
  18:44:53 [Rinke]
  ... if we want to use xml schema types inline, ...
  18:45:04 [Rinke]
  ... we need feedback from people about this
  18:45:08 [bijan]
  I got negative feedback from OWL API/Protege4 author Matthew Horridge
  18:45:10 [jeremy]
  I'll ask HP implementors
  18:45:17 [Rinke]
  IanH: another case where people need to have a look and get feedback
  18:45:19 [JeffP]
  q+ unary datatype
  18:45:21 [bijan]
  I would expect negative feedback from TopQuadrent (Holger)
  18:45:31 [bijan]
  Oh, xml schema syntax inline
  18:45:32 [Rinke]
  IanH: negative with respect to which option?
  18:45:36 [JeffP]
  q?
  18:45:45 [IanH]
  q?
  18:45:54 [Rinke]
  alanr: I was advocating taking this as our first point strictly from a simplicity point of view
  18:46:03 [IanH]
  ack unary
  18:46:08 [IanH]
  ack datatype
  18:46:14 [bijan]
  q+ to talk about schema syntax
  18:46:17 [JeffP]
  q+
  18:46:22 [Rinke]
  ... doesn't require any vocabulary, might reduce the load at the expence of annoying but sufferable softare adaptations
  18:46:29 [pfps]
  well, what about all the corner cases in having inline XML Schema content?
  18:46:37 [Rinke]
  IanH: first bijan, then jeffP
  18:46:38 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:46:38 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  18:46:44 [IanH]
  ack bijan
  18:46:44 [Zakim]
  bijan, you wanted to talk about schema syntax
  18:47:01 [Rinke]
  bijan: I originally was thinking that using the XML schema syntax would be useful even with its limitations
  18:47:17 [Rinke]
  ... main argument against it: if we use XSD it restricts us in how we...
  18:47:24 [Rinke]
  ... would be apply new datatypes such as rational
  18:47:34 [Rinke]
  ... we could change it, but XSD guys might not like that
  18:47:56 [Rinke]
  ... unary datatypes with definitions, and totally different for n-ary: two different syntaxes
  18:48:01 [Rinke]
  ... if we do it ourselves
  18:48:09 [jeremy]
  how about noting the issue and coming back to it in a few months?
  18:48:23 [Rinke]
  ... some advantages if we do it ourselves, otherwise we have to take the XSD WG into account
  18:48:41 [alanr]
  q?
  18:48:42 [Rinke]
  ... if we make our home-made one it would probably be more uniform and more under control
  18:48:51 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  18:48:51 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  18:48:53 [Rinke]
  IanH: sounds like a convincing argument
  18:48:55 [alanr]
  q+ to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax
  18:48:59 [IanH]
  ack jeffp
  18:49:00 [jeremy]
  agree with ian no premature decision
  18:49:05 [Rinke]
  JeffP: question for mike... can we see the unions as well?
  18:49:15 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: there hasn't been a proposal to include unions no
  18:49:31 [Rinke]
  JeffP: if we don't have unions for datatypes. Won't we have too complicated datatypes
  18:49:47 [bijan]
  With external datatypes they could use union,a faict
  18:49:49 [Rinke]
  ... users might really want to reuse existing datatypes that they have
  18:50:07 [Rinke]
  IanH: if people don't use unions, then ...
  18:50:10 [IanH]
  q?
  18:50:10 [Rinke]
  (sorry missed that)
  18:50:11 [uli]
  but we had counter-examples for this, Jeff!
  18:50:28 [IanH]
  ack alan
  18:50:28 [Zakim]
  alanr, you wanted to ask whether we *at least* need to support XML syntax
  18:50:29 [pfps]
  -1 to requiring XML syntax
  18:50:30 [Rinke]
  alanr: might at least support the XML syntax. At least vs. might
  18:50:43 [JeffP]
  uli, could you send a pointer?
  18:51:08 [uli]
  Jeff, no - somewhere in the list of emails flying past
  18:51:11 [Rinke]
  IanH: if pople don't use unions, then the kinds of datatypes thay would be defining would be very simple, then not referencing
  18:51:16 [IanH]
  q?
  18:51:26 [Rinke]
  ... external datatypes using wouldn't be so much of an issue
  18:51:35 [Rinke]
  IanH: Mike was saying something about a proposal
  18:51:39 [JeffP]
  uli, which email in the mailing list?
  18:51:43 [MichaelSmith]
  to modify structural specification to require the approach described in
  when referencing external XML Schema definitions with id attributes
  18:51:52 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: proposal for modifying structural specificaiton
  18:51:53 [bijan]
  +1 to this proposal
  18:51:58 [jeremy]
  +1
  18:52:07 [jeremy]
  (look jeremy and bijan agree!)
  18:52:14 [JeffP]
  :-)
  18:52:41 [alanr]
  +1
  18:52:43 [Rinke]
  IanH: that must mean everyone else is on board as well
  18:52:51 [MartinD]
  sounds reasonable :-)
  18:53:01 [Rinke]
  ... this would need to be formed into a proposal that we might resolve
  18:53:09 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:53:09 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  18:53:16 [bijan]
  q+
  18:53:20 [jeremy]
  q+ to note normativity (lack of)
  18:53:21 [Rinke]
  alanr: is there a section that we could read, a section that says everything about it?
  18:53:34 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: the alternative would be to insert text into the structural document
  18:53:44 [alanr]
  I like this
  18:53:50 [bijan]
  +1 to doing the edit
  18:53:51 [pfps]
  -1 to this proposal, as OWL 1.1 already has an adequate solution
  18:53:52 [alanr]
  that, ians suggestion
  18:53:53 [jeremy]
  I prefer inserting text
  18:53:58 [Rinke]
  IanH: add it to the document, and then come back with a proposal to accept the edit in the document
  18:54:01 [bijan]
  q-
  18:54:10 [pfps]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:54:10 [Zakim]
  pfps should no longer be muted
  18:54:10 [IanH]
  q?
  18:54:11 [Rinke]
  alanr: please comment in sandro's format
  18:54:14 [jeremy]
  q-
  18:54:31 [Rinke]
  IanH: peter objects? but I guess that when you come back with the proposal to accept your editing...
  18:54:39 [Rinke]
  pfps: the message stands for itself
  18:54:58 [Rinke]
  ... owl 1.1 already has its own syntax solution which eliminates the need for hacked-up xml schema documents
  18:55:09 [Rinke]
  alanr: there is our own syntax for defining datatypes?
  18:55:20 [Rinke]
  ... a requirement is to be able to reuse other people's documents...
  18:55:30 [jeremy]
  q+ to respond to peter
  18:55:30 [IanH]
  q?
  18:55:33 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  18:55:33 [Zakim]
  bijan was not muted, bijan
  18:55:36 [Rinke]
  pfps: there's a vanishingly small number of xsd documents in that form
  18:55:40 [Rinke]
  alanr: bijan?
  18:55:46 [IanH]
  q?
  18:56:02 [Rinke]
  bijan: not so much about reusing... I would be perfectly reasonable to define my own datatypes in xml schema.
  18:56:19 [Rinke]
  ... I have reasons for doing them inline sometimes, and for doing them outline in some cases
  18:56:21 [IanH]
  ack jeremy
  18:56:21 [Zakim]
  jeremy, you wanted to respond to peter
  18:56:21 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  18:56:23 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  18:56:24 [IanH]
  q?
  18:56:35 [Rinke]
  jeremy: the data may well be useful for an owl or webservice application
  18:56:42 [bmotik]
  XML Schema is a really complex specification, though.
  18:56:44 [JeffP]
  +1 for reuse xml schema datatypes
  18:56:56 [Rinke]
  ... since the rest of the world reads xml datatypes already, we might as well do it ourselves as well
  18:57:06 [Rinke]
  ... yes, it's awful, but that's life
  18:57:19 [bmotik]
  I don't understand quite what exactly is mean with "reusing XML Schema datatypes".
  18:57:22 [Rinke]
  IanH: bijan and jeremy are saying that there isn't actually a huge cost to it?
  18:57:38 [Rinke]
  ... we just need to add id's
  18:57:49 [Carsten]
  and by the user
  18:57:50 [bijan]
  Boris, I currently can create a set of XML Schema datatypes using XML Schema
  18:57:51 [Rinke]
  alanr: the documents need to be understood by the reasoners that support them
  18:57:52 [bijan]
  Why not?
  18:57:55 [bijan]
  Er
  18:57:57 [bijan]
  Why not use that?
  18:58:10 [Rinke]
  IanH: the added overhead for implementers is that they need to add support for xml datatypes
  18:58:20 [Rinke]
  pfps: you are going to require them to do that
  18:58:32 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: if you do reference them, you do it in the required way
  18:58:33 [bmotik]
  But are these only the elementary data types (sting etc), or are we including the complex datatypes as well (elements, complexType, etc.)?
  18:58:39 [jeremy]
  there may be an issue with some facets
  18:58:57 [Rinke]
  alanr: add a delimited specific set of datatypes... but implementers could hook into the syntax to support more complex datatypes
  18:59:04 [bijan]
  bmotik, yes, the imported datatype must be legal in OWL 1.1
  18:59:05 [jeremy]
  simple types only
  18:59:05 [IanH]
  q?
  18:59:12 [JeffP]
  boris, I think we mean simple types only
  18:59:15 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: owl 1.0 docs are a little bit inconsistend (integer + string, another doc has a longer list)
  18:59:29 [Rinke]
  ... we are not really clear on what's required for implementors and what's not
  18:59:36 [bijan]
  But if an implemented handled something more expressive, e.g., union, it seems harmless to let them address it by Id
  18:59:36 [Rinke]
  ... maybe clarifying that is important
  18:59:51 [bmotik]
  Referencing an external .xsd document from OWL parsers might be a pain for implementors.
  18:59:55 [Rinke]
  IanH: a side chat between boris and jeff, trying to clarify whether we are only talking SimpleTypes
  19:00:04 [jeremy]
  q+
  19:00:13 [Rinke]
  ... I was presuming we're talking about more complex types, not unions, but facets
  19:00:34 [Rinke]
  MikeSmith: when I was responding to Jeff, I was talking about inline... now we're talking about external datatypes
  19:00:37 [bmotik]
  What is "external"?
  19:00:47 [bijan]
  I.e., defined in an XML Schema file
  19:00:56 [Rinke]
  ... I don't think there was a proposal to restrict what kinds of external xsd datatypes are allowed
  19:00:58 [bijan]
  q+ to say "no to complex stuff"
  19:01:22 [bijan]
  +1 to jeremy's point about complex types
  19:01:22 [bmotik]
  What exactly could you write in this external document? Could you do much more than just apply factes?
  19:01:24 [IanH]
  q?
  19:01:28 [Rinke]
  IanH: reuse the external xsd in your owl file
  19:01:29 [IanH]
  ack jeremy
  19:01:41 [Rinke]
  jeremy: complextype and simpletype are technical terms
  19:01:49 [Rinke]
  jeremy: a simpletype can be very complicated
  19:01:51 [bijan]
  I could define a type hierachy
  19:01:56 [Rinke]
  IanH: complicated rather than complex them
  19:02:02 [bijan]
  I coudl define complex types, but they wouldn't be usable in OWL
  19:02:04 [Rinke]
  ... does this answer boris' questions?
  19:02:13 [bmotik]
  More or less.
  19:02:17 [Rinke]
  ... perhaps Boris could say whether he understands everything now?
  19:02:17 [bmotik]
  What is a type hierachy?
  19:02:20 [IanH]
  q?
  19:02:24 [bijan]
  ack bijan
  19:02:25 [Zakim]
  bijan, you wanted to say "no to complex stuff"
  19:02:53 [Rinke]
  bijan: we need to be a little bit careful wrt the types you are about to reference are types that are 'allowed'
  19:03:05 [Rinke]
  ... presumably no current reasoner can do anything with it
  19:03:18 [Rinke]
  ... the type that you reference must be definable in the inline syntax as well
  19:03:25 [IanH]
  q?
  19:03:39 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  19:03:39 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  19:03:40 [Rinke]
  ... qnames wouldn't be types you can use and dereference from
  19:03:46 [Rinke]
  IanH: clarified a lot for me
  19:03:53 [bijan]
  Boris, I can define a string type that is a subclass of xsd:string
  19:03:54 [Rinke]
  ... action on Mike
  19:03:56 [bijan]
  And subclasses of that
  19:03:59 [bijan]
  Etc.
  19:04:04 [Rinke]
  ... to make a change that encapsulates his proposal
  19:04:23 [Rinke]
  IanH: skipped over the user facing documents
  19:04:27 [Zakim]
  +Vipul_Kashyap
  19:04:28 [bmotik]
  Wiki question: can we approve changes out-of-order?
  19:04:28 [IanH]
  q?
  19:04:39 [Rinke]
  jeremy: three telecons so far
  19:04:56 [bmotik]
  For example, if two people make changes in one order, but we want to approve them in different order (or even roll-back one change), is this possible, and if so, how?
  19:04:59 [Rinke]
  ... quite a lot of disagreement, the main point of the telecons was sharing and exchanging views
  19:05:01 [bijan]
  Re: numerics, I've been working on an explantion document in support of datatypes and n-ary predicates:
  19:05:13 [Rinke]
  ... agreement on different users prefer docs in terms of their domain and use cases
  19:05:15 [Vipul]
  Vipul has joined #owl
  19:05:21 [IanH]
  q?
  19:05:23 [Rinke]
  ... risk that we like to produce more docs than we could
  19:05:40 [Rinke]
  ... some members are keen on docs that represent user communities
  19:05:53 [Rinke]
  ... another opinion is that we should produce very little
  19:06:08 [Rinke]
  ... another point of disagreement is to do with what the overview should look like
  19:06:12 [bijan]
  Well, part of that view (which is mine) is there is other venues which are, perhaps, more appropriate
  19:06:19 [IanH]
  q?
  19:06:22 [Rinke]
  ... input is owl 1.0: brief summary + list of constructs
  19:06:32 [Rinke]
  ... owl 1.1 summary which is much briefer
  19:06:46 [Rinke]
  ... not anywhere near resolving anytime soon
  19:07:04 [Rinke]
  ... a further issue is that non-wg members have interesting work that they would like to contribute to the group
  19:07:24 [Rinke]
  ... how much can we interact with people not on the wg
  19:07:51 [IanH]
  q?
  19:07:53 [Rinke]
  IanH: not really a constraint on interaction, but if the cdocuments reflect a lot of their input, then their names could not be on the docs
  19:08:05 [alanr]
  I thought it was Jeremy that was following up...
  19:08:11 [Rinke]
  Vipul: sent anemail to michel and ... as to what their expectations are
  19:08:19 [jeremy]
  i asked sandro
  19:08:37 [Rinke]
  IanH: fair to say, ongoing, progress is made, but significant issues?
  19:08:44 [alanr]
  also there are action items for UFDTF
  19:08:56 [Rinke]
  jeremy: for the overall taskforce, yes, I think we're making disappointingly small progress so far
  19:09:11 [alanr]
  Alan is more optimistic than Jeremy, but that may expose a flaw ...
  19:09:14 [Rinke]
  Vipul: one thing we did agree on is to identify the set of users that would
  19:09:22 [alanr]
  in Alan's optimism
  19:09:23 [IanH]
  q?
  19:09:28 [Rinke]
  ... be targeted by these docs
  19:09:45 [Rinke]
  ... CIO's Enterprise Architects, developers: list on an external website
  19:09:59 [alanr]
  Also started page trying to define who the targets of the documentation are
  19:10:09 [Rinke]
  IanH: we'll be discussing this more on the F2F... hopefully more progress on these issues
  19:10:12 [Rinke]
  ... then
  19:10:16 [alanr]
  19:10:42 [Rinke]
  IanH: issues ... first is Issue 13: quotation and CURIES
  19:10:52 [Rinke]
  sandro: CURIES as in Marie Curie
  19:11:23 [Rinke]
  alanr: peter and I had a breef discussion about our original decision to use SPARQL
  19:11:28 [bijan]
  Nasty in the RDF/XML yes?
  19:11:29 [jeremy]
  Did sparql not use CURIE because it wasn't reaching REC any time soon?
  19:11:35 [Rinke]
  ... peter thought it was limited, suggested to go for full CURIES instead
  19:11:43 [IanH]
  q?
  19:11:47 [Rinke]
  ... no problem: a dependency as they're not a standard yet
  19:12:11 [Rinke]
  ... if others think that CURIES are good, then I'm happy too
  19:12:19 [IanH]
  q?
  19:12:20 [Rinke]
  IanH: are we in a position that we could resolve
  19:12:34 [Rinke]
  sandro: the state of CURIES, we don't know they're ever going to be a rec
  19:12:42 [bijan]
  q+ to ask where would we use these
  19:12:48 [IanH]
  q?
  19:12:50 [Rinke]
  pfps: we could pull the stuff out of the CURIE spec
  19:13:01 [jeremy]
  pfps: we could copy/paste CURIE text if they do not reach REVC
  19:13:06 [Rinke]
  alanr: someone from the group suggested we might monitor this
  19:13:14 [IanH]
  q?
  19:13:21 [Rinke]
  ... and do a fallback when it turns out to not become a rec
  19:13:28 [jeremy]
  I'll Dave tomorrow
  19:13:38 [jeremy]
  ^ask^
  19:13:47 [bijan]
  ack bijan
  19:13:49 [Zakim]
  bijan, you wanted to ask where would we use these
  19:13:54 [IanH]
  q?
  19:13:58 [Rinke]
  sandro: in RIF there was some discussion, in the end decided not to... not relevant...?
  19:14:17 [jeremy]
  q+
  19:14:22 [IanH]
  q?
  19:14:22 [Rinke]
  bijan: if CURIES are not legal element names, then how would this effect the RDF serialisation
  19:14:34 [MichaelSmith]
  I see CURIs in RIF BLD at
  19:14:42 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  19:14:42 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  19:14:43 [Rinke]
  ... probably would require additional processing
  19:14:44 [sandro]
  right -- CURIE in AS, or in some of the serializations?
  19:15:00 [bijan]
  That doesn't always work
  19:15:12 [Rinke]
  alanr: if the local part is not a valid part of a qname then it's expanded to an escaped uri
  19:15:17 [IanH]
  q?
  19:15:19 [bijan]
  no that doesn't make sense
  19:15:26 [Rinke]
  ... I don't create extra namespaces, I fully quote them (in angle brackets)
  19:15:30 [IanH]
  ack jeremy
  19:15:45 [bijan]
  Yes, i.e., properties
  19:15:50 [alanr]
  pmid:1234 -> <
  >
  19:15:51 [Rinke]
  jeremy: certain uris that might occur as property uris can not be serialised as RDF uris
  19:16:05 [bmotik]
  Metaquestion: do we expect people to use the functional-style syntax directly? If not (i.e., if this syntax is used just in the spec), do we care about abbreviating URIs?
  19:16:06 [bijan]
  q+ to reply
  19:16:10 [Rinke]
  ... in alan's cases we're talking about subject/object uris, in that case no problem
  19:16:17 [alanr]
  can always use description/about
  19:16:24 [alanr]
  +1
  19:16:26 [Rinke]
  ... in predicate position some curies cannot be serialised in RDF/XML
  19:16:30 [bijan]
  zakim, ack bijan
  19:16:30 [Zakim]
  unmuting bijan
  19:16:31 [Zakim]
  bijan, you wanted to reply
  19:16:32 [Zakim]
  I see no one on the speaker queue
  19:16:39 [IanH]
  q?
  19:16:40 [Rinke]
  ... this a known limitation in RDF/XML, and we should ignore it
  19:16:52 [Rinke]
  bijan: that's fine jeremy, that's what I wanted to know
  19:17:01 [Rinke]
  ... if that's ok with you, then I'm fine with it
  19:17:09 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  19:17:09 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  19:17:14 [Rinke]
  jeremy: RDF/XML went to REC with this as a known bug
  19:17:37 [sandro]
  q+ to repeat the AS vs CS quest
  19:17:40 [IanH]
  PROPOSED: to base abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES
  19:17:40 [Rinke]
  alanr: you can already use an arbitrary URI already in OWL 1.1 which cannot be serialised as RDf
  19:17:53 [Rinke]
  jeremy: not an OWL problem, an RDF problem
  19:17:53 [bijan]
  But curies don't help in RDF/XML *at all*
  19:18:01 [IanH]
  q?
  19:18:07 [Rinke]
  sandro: is this just about the abstract syntax?
  19:18:16 [Rinke]
  alanr: only effect the functional syntax
  19:18:26 [jeremy]
  I would perhaps change my position after discussion with colleagues (dave and andy)
  19:18:38 [bmotik]
  functional sytax
  19:18:42 [bmotik]
  structural specification
  19:18:43 [Rinke]
  IanH: structural syntax
  19:18:48 [Rinke]
  alanr: functional style syntax
  19:18:49 [IanH]
  PROPOSED: to base functional style syntax abbreviated URIs on CURIES not QNAMES
  19:18:56 [alanr]
  "Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax"
  19:18:59 [sandro]
  +1
  19:19:06 [alanr]
  +1
  19:19:19 [Rinke]
  jeremy: have you seen my notes? I might change my vote tomorrow by email
  19:19:34 [alanr]
  put it on agenda next week
  19:19:39 [Rinke]
  IanH: what's the best way forward? Resolve this now, backtrack? Push it to next week?
  19:20:01 [Rinke]
  IanH: put it on the agenda for next week. You'll be in a position to give a definitive yay or nay
  19:20:13 [Rinke]
  IanH: we resolved that we will resolve something
  19:20:24 [Rinke]
  IanH: issue 2 is the final thing on the agenda
  19:20:41 [Rinke]
  ... we already resolved that we fix up this problem for alldisjoint wrt the RDF mapping
  19:21:19 [IanH]
  q?
  19:21:30 [Rinke]
  ... the question arose as to whether we make the language symmetrical and add constructs for things in the structural syntax that use lists
  19:21:35 [Zakim]
  -MartinD
  19:21:45 [bmotik]
  differentindividual
  19:21:47 [Rinke]
  ... boris what are the other ones
  19:21:49 [bmotik]
  sameindividual
  19:21:55 [Rinke]
  pfps: union, intersection
  19:22:00 [bijan]
  ?
  19:22:08 [bmotik]
  Union and intersection are already OK
  19:22:09 [bijan]
  Doesn't union and intersection allready nary
  19:22:13 [alanr]
  +1 to differentindividual
  19:22:16 [Rinke]
  IanH: really correct peter?
  19:22:31 [Rinke]
  ... in RDF they are mapped to multiple pairwise
  19:22:32 [bmotik]
  It is equivalentClasses, equaivalentProperties, disjointClasses, disjointProperties
  19:22:44 [Rinke]
  alanr: alldifferent was already in the first version?
  19:23:01 [Rinke]
  pfps: if you want to go for a same-sized translation, there are only two that are lists
  19:23:03 [bmotik]
  sameIndividaul, differentIndividuals
  19:23:10 [alanr]
  <owl:AllDifferent>
  19:23:12 [alanr]
  <owl:distinctMembers rdf:
  19:23:14 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:14 [jeremy]
  ifferentIndividuals(iID1 … iIDn)
  19:23:14 [jeremy]
  _:x rdf:type owl:AllDifferent .
  19:23:15 [jeremy]
  04_:x 04owl:distinctMembers04 T(SEQ iID04104 … iID04n04) .
  19:23:16 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:17 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:19 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:20 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:22 [alanr]
  <Opera rdf:
  19:23:23 [alanr]
  </owl:distinctMembers>
  19:23:25 [alanr]
  </owl:AllDifferent>
  19:23:25 [jeremy]
  19:23:25 [bmotik]
  It does not enable roundtripping.
  19:23:26 [alanr]
  so differentindividuals already handled
  19:23:27 [Rinke]
  IanH: not a direct syntax as we have for alldisjoint
  19:23:38 [Rinke]
  pfps: the only rationale for having a direct syntax for some of them is
  19:23:57 [Rinke]
  that the obvious translation is n^2 and the non-obvious translation needs a trick
  19:24:09 [Rinke]
  IanH: boris says that it makes the problem for roundtripping
  19:24:24 [alanr]
  do we have specification of what roundtripping means? Is it an agreed upon requirement?
  19:24:38 [IanH]
  q?
  19:24:42 [uli]
  how big is this problem?
  19:24:43 [bijan]
  No
  19:24:44 [bmotik]
  For backwards-compatibility we might translate things as usual only if n =2
  19:24:53 [bmotik]
  If n != 2, we might use the new mapping
  19:25:17 [bijan]
  zakim, unmute me
  19:25:17 [Zakim]
  bijan should no longer be muted
  19:25:22 [IanH]
  q?
  19:25:32 [Rinke]
  pfps: we always have a roundtrip from functional to RDF and back, but if we already have a document in RDF then we cannot do roundtripping unless
  19:25:41 [bmotik]
  Sure, but if you have an OWL 1.1 RDF document (with new vocabulary), then things should be round-trippable.
  19:25:56 [Rinke]
  ... we have a direct mapping
  19:26:02 [bmotik]
  q+
  19:26:05 [Rinke]
  pfps: quantitative vs. qualitative improvement
  19:26:10 [bmotik]
  zakim, unmute me
  19:26:10 [Zakim]
  bmotik should no longer be muted
  19:26:14 [Rinke]
  pfps: reason is bloat
  19:26:14 [jeremy]
  +1 to pfps
  19:26:16 [bijan]
  zakim, mute me
  19:26:16 [Zakim]
  bijan should now be muted
  19:26:20 [Zakim]
  -Sandro
  19:26:21 [IanH]
  q?
  19:26:25 [alanr]
  +1 to pfps too
  19:26:32 [sandro]
  Arg -- wrong button
  19:26:40 [IanH]
  q?
  19:26:44 [sandro]
  q-
  19:26:48 [jeremy]
  sandro left call
  19:26:50 [bijan]
  sandro hung up
  19:27:03 [sandro]
  I pressed hangup instead of unmute.
  19:27:07 [Rinke]
  boris: I understand the point regarding the bload
  19:27:17 [Zakim]
  +Sandro
  19:27:21 [alanr]
  roundtripping not possible given backwards compatibility
  19:27:31 [Rinke]
  ... if we now extend the language with this new construct... new ontology, serialise as RDF then we can do roundtrip
  19:27:40 [alanr]
  I don't know if it matters
  19:27:47 [Rinke]
  ... if you use owl 1.1 RDF and owl 1.1 AS then things should be round-trippable
  19:27:57 [Rinke]
  IanH: this wasn't the simple discussion I was anticipating
  19:28:01 [bmotik]
  Zakim, mute me
  19:28:01 [Zakim]
  bmotik should now be muted
  19:28:13 [Rinke]
  ... are not going to get through this in the remaining 3 minutes of this telecon
  19:28:25 [Rinke]
  ... aim for email exchange to clarify the matter
  19:28:34 [Rinke]
  IanH: last item.... aob?
  19:28:37 [Rinke]
  ... any of it?
  19:28:49 [JeffP]
  +1 bye
  19:28:51 [uli]
  doe and dusted
  19:28:52 [Zakim]
  -Vipul_Kashyap
  19:28:56 [Rinke]
  IanH: declare us finished for this week
  19:28:57 [uli]
  bye bye
  19:28:57 [Zakim]
  -Evan_Wallace
  19:28:58 [Zakim]
  -jeremy
  19:28:59 [bmotik]
  bye
  19:28:59 [Zakim]
  -bijan
  19:29:00 [MarkusK]
  bye
  19:29:02 [Zakim]
  -Carsten
  19:29:03 [jeremy]
  bye
  19:29:03 [Rinke]
  yep
  19:29:03 [Zakim]
  -MIchaelSmith
  19:29:05 [Zakim]
  -JeffP
  19:29:05 [bijan]
  -bye
  19:29:06 [Zakim]
  -uli
  19:29:06 [zhe]
  bye
  19:29:07 [Zakim]
  -vit
  19:29:07 [Zakim]
  -MarkusK
  19:29:08 [Rinke]
  zakim, unmute me
  19:29:09 [Zakim]
  Rinke should no longer be muted
  19:29:11 [Zakim]
  -bcuencag
  19:29:22 [Zakim]
  -bmotik
  19:29:31 [Zakim]
  -pfps
  19:30:00 [Zakim]
  -IanH
  19:30:38 [Zakim]
  -zhe
  19:31:06 [alanr]
  19:31:16 [sandro]
  19:31:19 [alanr]
  Remove Zakim chit chat such as people entering, leaving, q+, acks, who is here, etc.
  19:31:21 [alanr]
  Move scribes own comments (as opposed) into irc syntax
  19:31:23 [alanr]
  Sometimes reorder to make discussions more coherent
  19:31:25 [alanr]
  Add section headers
  19:32:37 [alanr]
  Adding {{Action|4}} and {{Issue|23}}
  19:35:04 [Rinke]
  %7B
  19:35:37 [Zakim]
  -Sandro
  19:35:39 [Zakim]
  -Alan
  19:35:40 [Zakim]
  SW_OWL()12:00PM has ended
  19:35:41 [Zakim]
  Attendees were Rinke, bijan, MIchaelSmith, MarkusK, MartinD, bmotik, IanH, Alan, uli, Sandro, vit, pfps, bcuencag, Alan_Ruttenberg, Carsten, Evan_Wallace, zhe, JeffP, +078910aaaa,
  19:35:43 [Zakim]
  ... jeremy, Vipul_Kashyap
  19:36:09 [jeremy]
  jeremy has left #owl
  20:02:04 [uli]
  uli has left #owl
  21:49:40 [Zakim]
  Zakim has left #owl
  22:30:59 [IanH]
  IanH has joined #owl