RE: [OEP] minutes of 5/26 telecon

See inline comments.


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Welty [mailto:welty@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 1:55 PM
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: [OEP] minutes of 5/26 telecon



Minutes of 5/26/2005 OEP telecon 1900 UT

Attendees: Chris_Welty, natasha_noy, Mike_Uschold, Evan_Wallace, 
aldo_gangemi
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-swbp-irc

We discussed the latest n-ary relations editors draft of 24 May 
[http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd
-WD.html], 
and Mike's extensive review.  Numerous minor changes and some rewordings

suggested.  The main discussion centered on the name for Use Case 3, 
currently "network of individuals".  We tossed around the idea of using 
"Events", but convinced ourselves this was too specific, as the use case

applies in general to n-ary relations for which the arguments are a) 
individuals and b) no individual is clearly the "subject". 

We resolved to take the question as homework.  Suggestions welcome.

We discussed the "unintended models" point as well.  It turns out that
the 
comment about RDF treating two triples with the same S,P,O as "the same"

is not accurate.  As a result, the point is more general than just n-ary

relations, and is also more complicated than the bullet describes. We 
resolved to remove this bullet and move that point to the "pitfalls"
note, 
with perhaps a forward reference to it.

Finally, we discussed the proposed standard vocabulary for reified 
relationships.  Natasha suggested that specific vocabulary for mapping
OWL 
to other languages does not belong in this note, in particular the 
"argNum" property in the proposed vocabulary is for mapping n-ary 
relations to languages that use argument position to encode the role.
The 
"use cases" for this standard vocabulary were 1) tools that treat
reified 
n-ary relationships in some special way and thus need to know which ones

they are, and 2) translating OWL & RDF to other languages that support 
n-ary relations in the syntax.  Chris claimed the vocabulary, with the 
argNum property, enabled translation to any other language.  Natasha and

Evan suggested that UML "association classes" 
[http://www.agilemodeling.com/style/classDiagram.htm#Figure2] may
require 
something different as well.  This wasn't clear.

We resolved to continue this discussion by email.  The general issue is 
whether the proposed standard vocabulary should be part of the N-ary
note, 
or a separate note, 

[MFU] In the [unlikley] event that there are standard vocabulary items
that ONLY apply to this note, then they may belong in this note,
otherwise, a separate note is warranted.
--
and whether issues of language translation are in 
scope for the n-ary relations note. 
[MFU] In the event that the issues of language translation apply ONLY to
this note, then they belong here, otherwise the belong in a more general
note.

Someone (Evan?  Natasha?) will post 
something describing UML association classes in more detail (or more 
formally).  Aldo made some points about QCRs, but he had a bad
connection 
and it was difficult to understand - he also promised to post something
to 
the list.

Thanks all for the productive discussions.

Cheers,
Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA

 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/

Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 22:29:06 UTC