W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:59:20 +0100
Message-ID: <455DA418.6020900@w3.org>
To: "Hongsermeier, Tonya M.,M.D." <THONGSERMEIER@PARTNERS.ORG>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Eric Neumann <eneumann@teranode.com>


Hongsermeier, Tonya M.,M.D. wrote:
> 
> Helen: update on ACPP-  we have material posted on the Wiki, in
> Googledoc… Eric will get template from Ivan, they will send the link out
> in short time.  

I am not sure I understand what this refers to:-(


>                 We are not focused on temporal reasoning right now. 
> Eric: W3C encourages early sharing of drafts for comment and review.  
> How about Alan Ruttenberg’s mention of using inumerable classes, Helen: 
> we had some discussion, had RIM ontology, which uses lots of default
> values, what else should we produce?    This isn’t part of the ACPP
> ontology,  it’s a separate note on how to deal with Hl7 -  Helen
> proposes a note on the existing methods of use, and thoughts on
> implications on how to deal with optional things and how to deal with
> fixed values, describing scenarios to converting HL7 and problems
> encountered, pros/cons, things to be mindful?    Bill Bug- has anyone
> considered using SCOS for this?  Designed to support this…..if SCOS
> doesn’t work, either OWL or SCOS needs fixing  

You mean: SKOS:-) There will be a f2f meeting of the SWD Working Group
(also handling SKOS) in January. AFAIK, they want to look at SKOS use
cases, too. If there is an input on that by then, it would be good.

>                                                 Eric: consider action
> item to create a note on this topic, but perhaps as a later action item
> given all currently on the plate....all agreed, but will come back to
> this at a future date
> 
>[snip]
>
> Eric:  Other topics?   Bill Bug-  How do we deal with the fact that OWL
> 1.1 is moving forward without RDFS?  It is very concerning what
> stumbling blocks this decoupling will create… Ian Horrocks is very clear
> that the constraints that RDFs puts on OWL full doesn’t support what
> they need and has caused them to diverge…tool of choice for OWL 1.1 is
> something independent of RDF   Eric:  I’m also seeing the challenge as
> no surprise… RDFs is a partial approach, probably flawed… I’d be
> surprised if one can’t map from OWL 1.1 to RDF,
> 
> Susie:  in OWL 1.1 discussions, they are saying that they are not
> talking about RDF style semantics, could impact the mathematical
> foundation of RDF but shouldn’t impact usage of RDF,  a working group is
> be considered to address this,  

Let us not jump to conclusions on all this issue yet. The goal *is* to
have RDF style semantics, too, eventually (even if it is not there in
the current OWL draft). At least it is *our* (W3C's) goal, and there
will be ample possibility to have discussions on the charter. Please not
the public-owl-dev@w3.org is where, most probably, these discussions
will take place. YOUR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD THERE.



Ivan
-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Friday, 17 November 2006 16:44:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:45 GMT