- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:52:40 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-esw@w3.org
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:12 +0100 Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Looks like it will be a good meeting and is shaping up well. > > Couple of comments: > > o The 45m session on day two, "advanced implementing", could be clarified. > It doesn't sound like very long to cover the issues of OWL and inference. I > assume, given the length, that this slot is to discuss any such issues that > arise from the day1 discussions rather than opening up those topics from > scratch. You assume right. > ... Given the scale of the topic it might be worth narrowing it a little, > for example to datatypes and RDFS rather than attempt to squeeze useful OWL > discussions into the time - just a suggestion. Yes, there could be something to prune out here, but I'm not sure which ones. rdfs has been implemented the most, owl next and datatypes probably the least so it is a question of whether to talk about what has been done or what has not been done (yet). > o How much are you looking to discuss retrieval issues (query, access APIs)? > The title and reading list includes retrieval but the agenda doesn't have > anything specifically on that. Like OWL support, this is a big topic and it > might be worth keeping the meeting focused on the narrower storage aspects but > I'm happy either way. Personally I'd support some on the API/interface side of things such as query, WS, programmatic APIs. When you store the stuff, how you get it in/out is important. It seems somewhat that removing or reducing the OWL mentions would make it fit better into the time. However it would be a shame to have nothing about that since there are people working on it now/recently for OWL's CR so getting them together would be useful. I guess they are all off to the ontology conference in Florida anyway so maybe that's not so criticial for this event. > [The issue for us, and perhaps for other groups, is who should attend. If the > people interested in database mapping, in OWL inference and in retrieval > languages are different then it helps us to decide who should go if the meeting > focus is clear.] Right. > o It won't be in the public page anyway but the Jena entry should be just "HP > Labs" since the people doing the database support in Jena2 are based in Palo > Alto rather than Bristol. OK Dave
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 10:55:49 UTC