Re: Explanations and Proof-Language Meeting, Follow-Up

thanks also for your participation.
In addition to the list below, i think there is one thing we would like 
to do to facilitate your usage:
(I number it 6 as an extension to sandro's list below).
6. extend the portable proof specification so that there is a uri for 
premises.  (we can run a proposal by whomever is appropriate - from the 
phone conversation that sound like it may be tim, sandro, and jos)

Also, as asides as a result of comments today we will add:
 - a summary listing of sources used in a proof (in addition to the 
summary listing of the ground axioms used)

a few comments below:

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>>Many thanks for the meeting
>>http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29/swad/
>>
>>and the irc log
>>http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29-sw-team-irc
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks for posting those.  Thanks again to everyone who participated;
>even though we didn't cover the whole agenda, I think we got a long
>way given the subject matter and limitations of the medium.
>
>Moving forward, it seems like there are several mostly-separable areas
>of work:
>
>  1.  modifications to cwm to output the language/files
>  2.  write & publish the step & engine descriptions 
>      (perhaps via the ksl registrar, perhaps not...?)
>
we would like to facilitate publishing through inference web.  if there 
is some resistance to this, we would like to understand so that we can 
update iw to meet your needs.

>  3.  dialog about modifications to the language, in general; mostly
>      RDF-style issues, like adding URIs to nodes
>  4.  figure out the content-language issue (KIF, RDF/XML reification, ...)
>
we have users who need the expressive power of kif.  if you can live 
with less power (and we understand your language) , we can take 
registrations in a less expressive language (and internally translate to 
kif).

>  5.  (somewhat trivial) some web usability mods to IW Browser (cookies!)
>  
>
this may need a dialog as well.  we are happy to discuss and adapt if 
useful.

>It's not clear to me right now what resources are available at the
>W3C/MIT end, but hopefully we'll figure that out soon.
>  
>
we are eager to collaborate so we would like to help.  we will need a 
partner from your side of course so whenever you understand your 
resource situation, please contact us.

thx for the great conversation.  we look forward to more.

deborah

>   -- sandro
>  
>