W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001

minutes: Webont 2001-11-29 teleconference (for review)

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:29:41 +0000 (GMT)
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0111292151080.10240-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


Attendance: 25 present

Jeremy Carroll
Dan Connolly
Jos De Roo
Mike Dean
Stefan Decker
Tim Finin
Nicholas Gibbins
Pat Hayes
Jeff Heflin
James Hendler
Ziv Hellman
Ian Horrocks
Ruediger Klein
Libby Miller
Leo Obrst
Peter Patel-Schneider
Marwan Sabbouh
Michael Smith
Ned Smith
John Stanton
Lynn Andrea Stein
Patrick Stickler
Warner ten Kate
Herman ter Horst
Lynne R. Thompson

Regrets from Frank van Harmelen


>ACTION Review:

>Peter Patel-Schneider to arrange first f2f
>ACTION PeterPS: send request regarding non-US citizens getting into

DONE: Peter recommends booking hotel as soon as possible: liberal
cancellation policies

>Dan Connolly to complete webont mailing list updates and web page


>Jim H to get group moving

DONE: homework assignment

>Jim H to solicit/appoint editors as document assingments are mafe

Ongoing: new agenda item 1a will start this moving.

>Agenda item 1a - Roles and Responsibilities (Dan Connolly) - 5 min
>Dan to review WG roles of Chair, Staff Contact, Editors and WG members

ACTION item to group: get a w3c member password, read

>Agenda item 2 - Schedule discussion (15 min) - Dan Connolly

>Dan Connolly has a proposed schedule for the working group, he will 
>present and we will discuss.


PROPOSED: to produce a docuement describing use case and
requirements; draft input to Jan FTF, for publication soon after the Jan
FTF. DAML+OIL docs are also input to the Jan FTF.


>3 - DAML home page tour (20 min) - Mike Dean

>http://www.daml.org has many resources of use to this group, Mike 
>Dean will lead a discussion/virtual tour (please try to have web 
>access during the call - now and always)

this agenda item was postponed until next week.

>4 - "Homework Assignment Review (40 min) - Jim Hendler

>Presentation of use cases, discussion of how to move forward (Action 
>to be assigned)

ACTION: JIM: send mail about user cases - add more then cluster them
to 3 or 4 groups then find groups of 3 or 4 to work on them.

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0145.html
and raw notes below (and at

>5 - new business/next agenda discussion

the group didn't get to this agenda item

NEXT MEETING in one week

raw notes (at http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2001-11-29.txt)

(please accept my apologies for name misspellings and misattribution - I
found it hard to work out who was speaking when, and I'm not great at

17:10:23 <libby> carroll here
17:10:28 <libby> connolly here
17:10:28 <libby> jos here
17:10:33 <libby> mike here
17:10:39 <libby> stefan
17:12:05 <libby> tim, gibbins, hayes, heflin, hendler, hellman, klein,
Miller, obrst, patel-schneider, sabbouh here
17:13:10 <libby> michel, ned smith, staton, sticckler, ten kate, ter
horst, thompson here
17:13:16 <libby> ian is trying to join
17:13:36 <libby> regrets from frank van harmlen
17:13:50 <libby> 23 participants - not a majority
17:13:58 <libby> 1: action review
17:14:10 <libby> peter: regsitration for f2f, hotels
17:14:29 <libby> peter: 25 likely or better: register early not often
17:14:39 <libby> discounted rates are not held
17:14:50 <libby> liberal cancellation policies
17:14:54 <libby> for hotels
17:15:04 <las> * las wonders whether registration is anything other than
hotel and emailing peter?  
17:15:34 <libby> peter: no. closer I will talk to corporate secirity
17:15:45 <libby> ian joins
17:16:17 <libby> closing action of web page up to date
17:16:29 <libby> jim's action was to get group moving
17:16:34 <libby> - done
17:16:45 <libby> 4th action solicit appoitying editors - ongoing
17:16:56 <libby> new agenda item will do that
17:17:31 <libby> question: on the RDF group need to educate the
world. does this group also have that?
17:17:40 <libby> - will discuss that later
17:18:36 <jhendler> http://www.w3.org/Guide/
17:19:02 <libby> agenda item 1a: roles and responsibilities
17:19:12 <libby> action item to gtrop: get a w3c member password
17:19:21 <DanC> cf http://www.w3.org/Guide/#Roles
17:20:15 <libby> look through this material and see where you stand
17:21:01 <libby> jim and danc feel like people are waiting for them to
do stuff: here is a list of what they do; the group has to do the rest
17:21:39 <libby> jim is not the 'parent' role; though you can ask him if
things are out of scope
17:21:53 <libby> try to send mail to everyone.
17:22:27 <libby> DanC: guide book is conventional wisdom - we are not
bound by it
17:22:57 <libby> history, expectations and advice, 'case law'
17:23:43 <libby> staff contact: DanC is supposed to get us to meet
17:23:50 <libby> he;s been doing that well this week
17:24:02 <libby> please get used to reading the emails
17:24:32 <libby> things are taking rather a long time: bios took a month
17:24:52 <libby> the work doesn't get done in the telecons but in mail
17:26:03 <libby> contributors roles: different levels opf participation
wrt to teh documents; important one is editorial role
17:26:18 <libby> an important one is the editorial role
17:26:34 <libby> peter p-s is editor wrt ??
17:26:46 <las> pfps wrt semantics
17:26:51 <libby> the semantics
17:26:53 <libby> thanks
17:27:00 <libby> with deb mcguiness
17:27:09 <libby> +ora, and lyn stein
17:27:23 <las> * las laughs, also notes that her name has two n's
17:27:26 <libby> and stefan? for the language
17:27:29 <libby> sorry ...
17:27:45 <libby> everyone else is a contributor
17:27:58 <libby> not stefan, ora
17:28:09 <DanC>
schedule: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0132.html
17:28:22 <libby> agenda item 2:
17:28:25 <libby> schedule
17:29:12 <libby> we started late. the group has been started 3 months
later, and this is ok.
17:29:30 <libby> the schedule will be taken to the coordination group
which approves it
17:30:00 <pfps> is there an example hello-world document to look at?
17:30:02 <libby> after 2002, dan c has to ask to carry on
17:30:35 <libby> re pats q about dissemination, yes we do
17:30:59 <libby> often usedul to do a requirements document
17:31:18 <libby> to get peoples' attention
17:31:49 <libby> f2f: draft doc 2 weeks before
17:32:19 <libby> risk of working remotely is that too many drafts and
people end up with different versions.
17:32:30 <libby> cost effective: no editing after 2 week limit
17:32:34 <libby> maybe 1 week?
17:33:42 <libby> may 2002: big month, www2002, dissemination rather than
meeting would be better
17:34:03 <libby> should probably look at rest of f2f meetings asap
17:34:37 <libby> not changing it for a while = candidate recommendadtion
17:34:53 <libby> danc hoping won't need this phase, as implementors will
track it
17:35:02 <libby> there aare precedents for both models
17:36:03 <libby> this is an aggesssive schedule, but we're already
building on good work, and we need to do it fast
17:36:29 <libby> peter?: are we building an ontology language or
building on daml
17:36:38 <DanC> "The Working Group shall start by evaluating the
technical solutions proposed in the
17:36:38 <DanC> DAML+OIL draft. If in this process the Working Group
finds solutions that are agreed to be
17:36:38 <DanC> improvements over solutions suggested by DAML+OIL, those
improved solutions should
17:36:38 <DanC> be used." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter
17:36:50 <libby> we are starting with daml, and have to have reasons to
17:37:17 <libby> daml is already advances stuff - everything else is
research - we can't progress fast
17:37:26 <libby> start on and expand or start form and reduce?
17:37:51 <libby> lynn? need to produce something people can use in a
short amount of time
17:38:12 <libby> not the role of the wg to do further research, though
some of us involved
17:38:36 <libby> ...concerned people will not have time to come up to
17:38:59 <libby> ...not sure that peple will be pushing through things
that people are not happy with
17:39:39 <las> yup, that was me:  Lynn Stein (there's another Lynn
floating around too)
17:39:49 <timfinin> gotta go to a meeting.  bye
17:39:50 <libby> ah thanks
17:40:06 <timfinin> timfinin has quit
17:40:22 <libby> lynn (other lynn) seems very agrressive form experinec
in xml protocol wg
17:40:43 <libby> the schedule, that is
17:41:23 <libby> jim: daml + oil shouild be considered first
draft. hello worlld use case stuff, what ont language has to do and
17:41:47 <libby> if everything we want to do can be done by something
already, strange wg
17:42:06 <libby> by f2f people shoudl have read daml walkthrough
17:42:12 <las> * las wonders whether "that" is daml+oil or the "hello
world" doc?
17:42:32 <las> daml+oil is fairly stable, but "hello world" doesn't
17:42:32 <libby> come into f2f: here's something we all understand, use
cases and goals, what do we need to do with the draft to meet these
17:42:37 <libby> ah
17:42:40 <libby> thanks
17:43:05 <libby> q: should we write some requirenments?
17:43:16 <libby> jm: requirements/usecase, something like that
17:43:21 <DanC> s/jm/dc/
17:43:34 <libby> sorry, I can't tell who is speaking
17:43:55 <DanC> that was Pat Hayes...
17:44:04 <DanC> referring to a message from Peter; this one, I
think: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0107.html
17:44:09 <libby> pat: asks question about consensus that I missed
17:45:03 <libby> jim:focus on what to do with the language, and the
requirements it makes on the ontology language
17:45:43 <libby> pat: might not get at this directly enough - different
paths from use cases to different ontolgy langauges
17:45:59 <las> I think that it is very important to produce a
requirements doc (or a use cases doc, or a "hello world" doc) 2 weeks
prior to the f2f, if only to get us focused on the moving-forward
producing-documents kind of work.  If we don't, we'll never make the
17:46:28 <libby> violent agreement happens
17:46:54 <libby> 6 or 8 use cases, related to requiremnents, but not
17:47:10 <libby> requirements shoudl be baccked up with usecases though
17:47:58 <libby> we should still have this discussion, even though we
have to produce a document
17:48:34 <libby> q: what is the doc by dec 31, who is going to write it,
what's it going to be?
17:49:21 <libby> ...an implicit motion on teh table: one new doc for the
17:49:30 <libby> ...I don't like this
17:50:12 <libby> ...we could have cleaned up daml and oil docs to look
at - we need to decide very soon...
17:50:21 <libby> (that was peter)
17:50:50 <libby> peter: a proposal: fix up the daml and oil docs. may
require significant changes. these would go into f2f
17:51:40 <libby> mike smith: we dont have requirements; usecases is an
attempt to get consensus on world view. also daml and oil. that needs to
be done by the daml+oil people. I can't do anything about that till use
17:52:04 <libby> lynn s: second; and actiojn someone to put them in a
useable form
17:52:46 <libby> jim: we will be looking for someone to do this, but I'd
like to brianstorm 4 or 5 pieces
17:52:59 <libby> ...and then create a document out of them
17:53:14 <libby> lynn: I volunteer to be the last person in thois chain
17:53:29 <las> ...or to share that role with someone else (I'd actually
rather co-edit)
17:53:40 <libby> q: pat? about the usecases - are we looking for
mismatches between usecases and daml+oil?
17:53:52 <libby> yes, also rdfs, xmls, current technology
17:54:20 <libby> leo: is there already a daml lessons learned document?
17:54:34 <libby> mike: lots of experince, but no one document
17:54:42 <las> * las wonders whether this is a good time (and a timely
time) to turn to daml+oil....
17:54:54 <libby> (this group cannot make requests, except very politely)
17:56:07 <libby> missed that, sorry
17:56:42 <DanC> PROPOSED: to produce a docuement describing use case and
17:56:55 <libby> resolved: we will prodiuce a doc describing use cases
and requirements and diversences from current practice, by one week
proior to f2f
17:57:04 <DanC> ... and things that can't be done with current
17:57:06 <libby> by f2f everyone will be familiar w daml+oil docs
17:57:36 <libby> dan: produce this as a tech report?
17:57:48 <libby> ...target for the usecase doc is for the world not us
17:58:21 <libby> lynn: at same time as f2f?
17:58:48 <libby> danc: most grppups hestitate about tech page, because
very well read.
17:59:03 <libby> ...good if we don't hestitate though
17:59:58 <libby> lynn: hopefully minimal revision after the f2f. I can
only attend one day of teh f2f, so discussion wopuld have to happen on
that day. january for tech report?
18:00:27 <DanC> PROPOSED: to produce a docuement describing use case and
requirements; draft input to Jan FTF, for publication soon after the Jan
FTF. DAML+OIL docs are also input to the Jan FTF.
18:00:33 <libby> so: draft tech report at f2f, minopr changes at f2f. at
f2f, compare with daml document to see how we can move forward quickly
18:00:39 <libby> thanks
18:01:05 <libby> need volunteers over email for developing the usecases
18:01:27 <libby> can we postpone mike's walkthrough will next week? yes
18:01:38 <DanC> telcons are good for conducting polls about how many
people find which use cases interesting/evocative.
18:01:48 <libby> mike will send ot the url as well
18:02:13 <mdean_> i'll be briefing next week from
18:02:19 <las> PROPOSE we begin going around the table....
18:02:44 <libby> we are going around the table, talking about usecases
18:03:37 <libby> lynn stein: 2 usecases: bibliograohic entry for a ppaer
or for students. lots of resourecs like booksellers have the information
I need, but many steps to get the information I need...
18:03:52 <libby> ...dc goes half way, but not enough
18:04:28 <DanC> I'm interested in the bib ontology; I developed some
tools: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#bib
18:04:34 <libby> ...second case: squeal/parasite system: lightweight
way, a readme for websites - an ontology about the differnt things that
make up websites
18:05:06 <libby> ...where pages had moved to. to extend it, had to write
lots of code
18:05:16 <libby> ...now we shouldf be able to do this easily
18:05:39 <libby> danc: me also, the latter case
18:06:01 <libby> deb mcG is also interested in this use case; also mike
18:06:16 <DanC> * DanC hears a buzz on the line; just me?
18:06:30 <libby> mike s: 12 million docuemnts onn the web, manage them
18:06:39 <libby> no, I heard it
18:07:02 <libby> ...can't find anything unless you work in that
18:07:07 <libby> danc: interesting...
18:07:51 <libby> jeremy C at HP: from a colleague, summary to teh grou
shortly. for describning speciies and multimedia revords about them...
18:08:14 <DanC> on the EDS scenario: I would have though the problem was
that people don't record their knowledge formally (i.e. in
machine-readable form). But the EDS experience says they do, but only in
a local vocab. Yes, ontology technology should be good at relating local
vocabulary to organization-wide vocabulary.
18:08:25 <libby> ...issues include different levels of experise
describing the same inform ation; false and true information capture...
18:08:35 <libby> ...will write this up
18:08:50 <libby> ...default reasooning
18:08:54 <las> * las is thrilled and amused to see a Real World
application of the Tweety problem.  (Yale Shooting Problem next?)
18:09:17 <DanC> tweety?
18:09:45 <libby> jos: language should enable finding inconsistences in
18:10:02 <libby> ...a requirement, jos thinks
18:10:50 <libby> mike dean: see email usecases. mostly
pragmatic. information already on the web, so that people can write
programms to use the data - airline schedules, hotels.
18:11:39 <libby> ....having that information avilable so that in a day I
could write an agent that should work out my schedule...
18:11:54 <DanC> yes! yes! if we can *actually get* the airlines etc. to
publish their stuff in the semantic web, I'll be SO HAPPY! but the hard
part is the $$ issues, not the technology, I fear.
18:12:11 <libby> ....also take the information  from the hotel website
and add own comments sio I remember them
18:12:29 <libby> ...different hotels willl use difefrent ontologies -
need some translation facilities
18:13:16 <libby> leo: electronic catalogues for products and services,
maybe  web services anduddi are alreday tacking this
18:13:45 <libby> ....e.g. finding a screw of a certain length - cost
avilability, location, relationship to the buying company
18:13:51 <heflin> heflin has quit
18:13:51 <jhendler> jhendler has quit
18:13:57 <libby> ...much of this is a problem of mapping betweenm
18:14:13 <DanC> Leo's use cases are in email,
btw: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0137.html
18:15:03 <libby> leo: second example: web services. e.g. weather
forecasts, at the moment text based, opntology would be better...
18:15:40 <libby> third case: a seamntic search, conceptual search for
some of the retrieval services that already exist
18:16:08 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
18:16:08 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
18:16:25 <libby> ?? adding: something better than uddi, but less
powerful than daml-s
18:16:26 <DanC> peter's
mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0108.html
18:16:31 <DanC> ??=Peter
18:16:41 <libby> (peter) - would be a good place for an ontology
language to be
18:17:25 <libby> ....uddi, you don't know what their tokens are - want
more than that....
18:17:53 <libby> marwan: I have similar interests to uddi
18:18:20 <libby> ian horrocks: very similar requirements to these have
been identified in the GRID project...
18:18:36 <libby> ...which doesnt maybe need to be as complex as daml-s
18:19:11 <libby> jim? daml-s is not part of the daml spec starting
place, although we can look at it
18:20:10 <libby> nick gibbins: outre usecases...? conceotual open
hypermedia - create the links on the fly from an ontology - the
nevigable part of the ontology - we wanrt to find out the interesting
18:20:34 <libby> ....also a community of practice - what commonalities
arise form the things they do in common
18:20:58 <libby> ziv: any consideration of the realtionship between
entity-realtionship digrams and ontology?
18:21:08 <libby> ...we think it is interesting here
18:21:43 <libby> jim: databse people think this database schema is
intersting; also tim bl
18:22:01 <libby> ian: scheck out len zorini's work (sp?)
18:22:32 <libby> stefan decker: modelling telecommunication devices,
intercommunication of servivces in a large network...
18:22:52 <jhendler> jhendler has quit
18:22:52 <heflin> heflin has quit
18:22:53 <DanC> btw, see "The Semantic Web and Entity-Relationship
models" http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot
18:22:55 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
18:22:55 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #webont
18:22:58 <jhendler> jhendler has quit
18:22:58 <heflin> heflin has quit
18:23:27 <libby> ...constraints to restrictcardinaility of properties,
checking consistency with an ontology, formulate integrity constraints
18:23:50 <libby> ...ontology of website develpoment at stanford
18:24:16 <libby> ....describe the content of web sites as well as
websites themselves ontology driven
18:24:32 <libby> ...primitives have to be simple so that lots of people
can use them
18:25:40 <libby> jeff efflan: see my mail; fairly abstract, mostly
covered by others. have requirements list though, makde over last 4
years from show and daml+oil...:
18:27:15 <libby> ... reusing ontology, managing evolution changing over
time. interoperability of ontologies. how much intereoperability we want
to achive, e.g. could have proceedural attachments. manegment of
inconsitencies is important, maynbe not here. scalability, usabiloity,
indicating persistence or lac k of it
18:28:34 <libby> pat hayes: rather hasty mail just before
telcon,. better one later. would like general purpose ontology,
e.g. standard upper ontology. tools for subject matter expecrts to
create ontologies for biological reasoning... 
18:28:46 <libby> ...use these tools for useable interfaces.
18:29:14 <JonathanDale> JonathanDale has joined #WebONT
18:29:21 <heflin> heflin has joined #webont
18:29:27 <JonathanDale> morning (or afternoon/eveing)
18:29:46 <libby> marwan: 2 usecases. first: ontologies in info
retrieval. lots of documents, but no wayy to structire the information -
intelligent query answering...
18:30:07 <libby> ....being able to find what you are looking for without
the exact words appearing in nteh document
18:30:36 <libby> ....second: hping to use ontologies for articulating
the meaning of fields in schemas
18:31:13 <libby> ...third: change software cycle to.... (missed it,
18:31:50 <las> * las ducks out @ 1:31, looks forward to the minutes.....
18:31:54 <las> las has left #webont
18:32:02 <libby> schrieber: finding photos of art images, found a number
of problems with RDF schema. very detailed requirements - agggregation
and inter-slot constraints
18:32:56 <libby> libby: creating data, querying
18:33:45 <libby> ??: pesenting information to the user and
environment. sensor detection and descriotion can draw conclutions about
the room, and presentin this informatioon using user profiles.
18:33:54 <libby> (didbn't catch the name, sorry)
18:34:50 <libby> ned smith: 3 use cases. first: embedding ontologies in
acturating devices - have to be distributed, efficient, and linked
together fairly seamlessl;y
18:35:28 <libby> ...representing device properies. devices from
different vendors will need to interoperate.
18:35:53 <libby> ...a physical device - clocks, temperature control
18:36:52 <libby> ...also need to interface with legacy control
processes. A montorint process overlays a control process, and the
ontology needs to represnt the monitor process. 
18:38:02 <libby> ..third: division of labour for distributed
managebility. need to have a defintiion of roles and domains for the
management service to get accesas to teh devices in the control network,
but the control network is not expoed to improper services
18:38:23 <libby> jim: ned plaese send email to teh group
18:38:40 <libby> ??(name?): department of defence
18:38:57 <libby> ...here as a user - what are your user needs
18:39:09 <libby> john stanton.
18:39:55 <libby> action: jim: send mail about user vcases - add more
18:40:03 <libby> ... then cluster them to 3 or 4
18:40:20 <libby> ...then find groups of 3 or 4 to work on them
18:40:39 <libby> DanC - next meeting is one week hence
18:41:11 <libby> we adjourn
18:42:01 <jah-home> jah-home has joined #webont
18:42:01 <JosD> JosD has quit
18:42:06 <libby> danC - am I  supposed to send these minutes to the
group - i.e. clean them up, and getb the action items etc? not just as
is, presumably
18:42:27 <libby> (i.e. libby asking a question - scribing is over)
18:42:29 <jah-home> now I get back on -- arrghh!  I was kicked out of
chat mid call - sorry all
18:42:59 <DanC> good question, libby.. Jim, what did libby get herself
18:43:05 <heflin> heflin has quit
18:43:45 <DanC> JimH, I suggest you make it more clear what you expect
in the way of scribe duties in the future, and solicit a scribe in
advance, until we get to the point where we have shared expectations of
how it works.
18:44:08 <jah-home> xxx
18:44:13 <DanC> I'd like a cleaned up record with the action items
clearly marked up and such.
18:44:26 <DanC> if you're willing to do that, libby, please do.
18:44:51 <libby> ok, I'll give it a go. I wonder whe
18:44:59 <libby> er this logs to - I'll check with dave
18:45:00 <jah-home> Libby - what I would like is for you to extraxt
action items at the beginning, and then the rest can just be a copy of
the verbatim log.
18:45:09 <DanC>
logs: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2001-11-12.txt
18:45:14 <libby> ok, that'a fine
18:45:17 <libby> thanks
18:45:21 <DanC> er... near
there: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 17:32:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:40 UTC