W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2003

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

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:31:49 -0700
Message-ID: <3EAF5FC5.3070002@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, Dejing Dou <dejing.dou@yale.edu>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@belo.Stanford.EDU>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <pp@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, sw-team@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
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
>>and the irc log
>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 

>  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 

>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.


>   -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 01:32:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:23 UTC