- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:28:25 -0700
- To: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
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