text: Teleconference.2008.05.28/Minutes
  These minutes have been approved by the Working Group and are now protected from editing. (See IRC log of approval discussion.)
  Contents
  - Present
  - Boris Motik, Elisa Kendall, Ivan Herman, Jeremy Carroll, Rinke Hoekstra, Ian Horrocks, Alan Ruttenberg, Peter Patel-Schneider, Martin Dzbor, Evan Wallace, Michael Smith
  - Regrets
  - Jie Bao, Markus Krötzsch (conflicting meeting), Sandro Hawke (RIF f2f meeting)
  - Chair
  - Alan Ruttenberg
  - Scribe
  - Zhe Wu
  Accept previous minutes
  PROPOSED: accept previous previous minutes
  Alan Ruttenberg: Jeff, need more work?
  Jeff Pan: tried to incorporate Peter's comments
  Alan Ruttenberg: consider it not ready
  PROPOSED: Thank Jeremy Carroll for his exemplary service to the WG and wish him well in his new employment
  Alan Ruttenberg: Jeremy's last meeting. we all thank him!
  RESOLVED: Thanks Jeremy Carroll for his exemplary service to the WG and wish him well in his new employment
  Action items status
  Alan Ruttenberg: pending review actions
  Action 143 Put editorial note in profiles document
  Action 43 Develop scripts to extract test cases from wiki. closed.
  Action 139 Sheperd/coordinate the patching process (per Issue 119)
  Ian Horrocks: good progress made. don't mind leaving it open
  Alan Ruttenberg: estimation?
  Ian Horrocks: sometime before next F2F
  Michael Schneider: The action itself can be closed. Issue 119 should be left open. expect to have the first draft somewhere in June so we have enough time before F2F. I am working on it.
  Issues
  Issue 21 and Issue 24 Imports and Versioning
  Ian Horrocks: already have text based on Peter, Boris, AlanR's discussion
  Ian Horrocks: alanr has some issues
  Alan Ruttenberg: first one, not importing multi version of the same ontology. second, owl:incompatibleWith
  Ian Horrocks: not clear to me that we can resolve it now
  Michael Schneider: Issue 21 about import, it is not clear to me
  Boris Motik: answer to alanr's comment. if two onotlogies are marked incompatible, it is better to say nothing when multi version imported. current spec says nothing when multi version imported. if you need validation, it is out of the scope.
  Ian Horrocks: all versions are treated as advisory, rather than formal
  Boris Motik: you get the union of multi versions. SPEC provides no mechanism for detecting this. you can implement on top of OWL 2.
  Boris Motik: i implemented what I thought that we agreed.
  Ian Horrocks: alanr, are you arguing about what you want, or the process
  Alan Ruttenberg: at the workshop, we did not have a solution. But later peter sent a follow-up email
  Ian Horrocks: alanr, do you like the SPEC to include precise statement on what will happen if two versions of the same ontology are imported?
  Alan Ruttenberg: I like to say what peter said that ontology should not import multi versions
  Boris Motik: Actually the SPEC is precise on that.
  Jeremy Carroll: A bit disappointed that import TF is not decisive
  Ian Horrocks: To be fair, everyone thought that we have agreed. and then implemented what we agreed.
  Ian Horrocks: Jeremy said that SHOULD is the right thing to say
  Peter Patel-Schneider: I agree with Jeremy
  Peter Patel-Schneider: I am happy with the way it is. Put SHOULD in to make some folks in the WG happy. right now, SHOULD is not there
  Boris Motik: sure. that is ok. if we can close the issue
  Ian Horrocks: think it is useful. maybe we can converge and resolve it
  Alan Ruttenberg: think it is just editorial. owl:incompatibleWith, shall we discuss it as a separate issue?
  Ian Horrocks: it is semantic free
  Alan Ruttenberg: it carries some weight on what people think their tools should do
  Ian Horrocks: like to have some text clarifying "SHOULD." At least add a pointer.
  Boris Motik: I changed the text. took out the offending paragraph. add "SHOULD NOT". . Hope it solves the problem
  Jeremy Carroll: IanH raised a good point that SHOULD is advisory
  Boris Motik: for SHOULD, MAY, ..., there is a disclaimer at the beginning
  Alan Ruttenberg: don't want to change semantics as well
  Boris Motik: prefer lower case and do a review. Later, change "should" systematically
  Jeremy Carroll: you can always rephrase "should." It makes things simple for the readers
  Ian Horrocks: we all in agreement now?
  Alan Ruttenberg: Boris, are you going to put something similar in the document for incompatibleWith?
  Ian Horrocks: are we voting on should => SHOULD, or incompatibleWith?
  PROPOSED: spec should state that an ontology SHOULD NOT import two incompatible versions
  PROPOSED: SPEC should state that an ontology SHOULD NOT?
  Ian Horrocks: getting into too much details on wording. it would be better if you guys figure this out precisely off line
  Ian Horrocks: we had enough discussion on this issue. come back next week
  Issue 124
  Issue 124 (newly open) The complement of a datarange is defined relative to the whole data domain
  Alan Ruttenberg: consensus is this is how things are.
  Michael Schneider: Boris's comments are valid. The only thing is we could have this thing in the primer. suspect people will ask how to do complement on just the data type.
  PROPOSED: The complement of a datarange is defined relative to the whole data domain (close as resolved Issue 124)
  Alan Ruttenberg: m_schnei can put a comment in the primer
  Jeremy Carroll: for OWL2 FULL, complementOf should be on the data type.
  Michael Schneider: in owl full, if you take complement of xsd:integer, then you get owl:Thing minus xsd:integer
  Uli Sattler: this piece of advice perhaps is too detailed for primer. should go somewhere indeed
  Alan Ruttenberg: time is past. let us continue on email
  Issue easy keys
  Alan Ruttenberg: just to check we are on the same page on easy keys. both easy keys/top bottom added to spec, with formal addition to language based on vote. can we do a straw poll
  Peter Patel-Schneider: don't think your description match minutes
  Peter Patel-Schneider: the straw poll wording in the minutes does not mention documentation change
  Ian Horrocks: one question on top/bottom, do we agree on the name?
  Alan Ruttenberg: not
  Alan Ruttenberg: add them as top and bottom, . and an editorial note saying that names are not final
  Boris Motik: implementing universal role is hard. I am not convinced it is "easy." I like to keep it separate from easy keys
  Alan Ruttenberg: where do we stand on easy keys?
  Peter Patel-Schneider: not aware of implementation of easy keys
  Michael Schneider: missing major stakeholders, shall we defer the decision?
  Alan Ruttenberg: my sense is that majority of this WG are stakeholders and they are for it
  Boris Motik: thinking about implementing easy keys. not trivial, should not be impossible. We should have larger scale evaluation though.
  Alan Ruttenberg: we should have general discussion on these next week
  Issue 109
  Issue 109: What is the namespace for elements and attributes in the XML serialization
  Alan Ruttenberg: 1) namespace itself. 2) should we reuse the same namespace
  Ivan Herman: namespace in terms of XML, and namespace used in RDF/OWL are very different. I am in favor of two different namespaces to avoid problems for OWL/XML
  Ivan Herman: we decided to use owl namespace for the whole thing. so 1) is ruled out. don't care other three
  Alan Ruttenberg: suggest 3. The year there give us possibility to evolve)
  Uli Sattler: just curious to hear what problems will come up if we only have one namespace
  Ivan Herman: there are lots of discussion in XML world of what exactly the semantics of namespace is. a word of caution is not to mix up things
  Uli Sattler: then it seems like something we should not decide now. need more information before we can make a decision.
  Ivan Herman: why it is a big problem to separate the two?
  Ivan Herman: if we decide to have a different one. I don't care which
  Issue 112
  Alan Ruttenberg: Issue 112 What name to give to Universal Property. Consensus: not trying meaningful name
  Issue 104
  Issue 104 disallowed vocabulary OWL 1.1 DL does not have a disallowed vocabulary
  Michael Schneider: in old OWL SPEC, have disallowed vocabulary. However, in the new RDF mapping document, we don't have something similar. e.g. having rdf:List is allowed in the new spec but not in the old spec
  Boris Motik: don't think this belong to the mapping document. Check section 2.2.of FS
  Ivan Herman: boris, fully agree. OWL/XML namespace should not have any new terms. it is irrelevant
  Boris Motik: it does have elements from OWL/XMl schema. I will change it after tele conf
  Michael Smith: on tests. make progress next week (before next F2F). I am willing to be aggregation point