- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:39:06 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Scribe Log for WebOnt 13 December 2001 CHAIR: Dan Connolly SCRIBE: Peter F. Patel-Schneider > 1) Administrivia (10 min, includes telecon greets and attendance) Roll call (by DanC) New Agenda Item: Peter and Frank - subgroup > ACTION (Decker, Schreiber, Obrst, Heflin, McGuinness): Within the > next week, produce outline of area of use cases.> > status: to be discussed, agenda item 3 See below > ACTION (JimH): solicit/appoint editors/process for producing > completed document from these pieces > status: area leads identified, process emerging - continue action Continued - need to find out what Jim actually means by this > 2) DAML+OIL Q&A (Ian Horrocks, Frank van Harmelen) 20 min > Chance for WG members to ask questions about DAML+OIL - walkthru or beyond. Frank van Harmelen is available for questions Dan Connolly asks for questions Leo Obrst: What is the status of rules? Frank: Useful, necessary, but explicitly out of scope ??: What about quantification? Frank: Limited because of computational issues. ??: What about equality? Frank: Included, no unique name assumption. ??: What about things like uncle? Frank: Can't be done. DanC: Comments on role rdf-logic, rdf-rules, ... mailing lists Role of rules. Leo Obrst: What about metalevel facilities? Frank: Status is unclear. How would it work? Jeremy Caroll: Can you use subProperty/subClass to get some of this? Frank: Sort of. Jeremy Caroll: What about annotation. E.g., can you require annotations on ontologies? Frank: Yes, but you don't get any semantic extensions. Peter: No change to behaviour will arise. Leo: What about reification? DanC cuts this off Harold?: Can you chain properties? Frank: Not in DAML+OIL. Peter: Decidability issues arise here. 4) New Business - Cleaning up DAML+OIL - Peter - Revising DAML+OIL - Frank - actually feedback on problems Peter has volunteers - six other people - goal is to get documents ready for the f2f Dieter +1 : all to group Lynn : wants to have pointers to all relevant messages ? : categorize mail messages on webont Peter will pick a mode for email message for his effort Proposal: let groups determine their email mode ACTION: Peter will produce document on cleanup by 7 January (non-negotiable) DanC: what about Frank's task? Frank doesn't have enough time to do it Mike Dean volunteers to collect and gather experience reports ACTION: Mike Dean will produce document on experience with DAML+OIL (and suggestions for revisions?) by 7 January (non-negotiable) > 3) Use case document[s] - 45 min > Discussion led by chairs of the area - each will discuss status and > outline, open discussion thereafter. ** Stefan Decker: Web Services - - email sent 13 December - use-case area summary: Web Services - interesting portions - combining web services - searching for web services - use case - device interconnection and interoperation DanC - chair message - use cases should not be ``exhaustive'' as then we will end up with an undoable task - instead try for a typical, important use case - group will then determine which use cases must be supported - need to have consensus to focus the work ??? - also need to be accessible to and compelling for outsiders DanC - also need to be concrete DanC - Q: status of Stefan's portion? Stefan Decker - status - less than 1/3 done - no specific examples Jeremy Caroll - sample implementation(?) for device interconnection - will send in if possible ??: use cases should be important Deb: agree - use cases should not be picked just to show off DAML+OIL ** Guus Schreiber: Collection management - email sent 13 December - use-case area summary: collection management - small number of use cases - Arkive use case - endangered species descriptions - important ideas - default inheritance Stephen Buswell - engineering data modelling is typical use case - can this be done in DAML+OIL ??? - want concrete examples for use case Guus - status of portion - need concrete example, e.g., from Arkive Guus - what format to use? Frank - think of implications for language design from use cases Guus - there are some in there Frank - actually a call for (all) other groups to do the same ** Leo Obrst - email sent 13 December - Use Case: Content Interoperability - what does content interoperability cover - device example above?? DanC - don't need to define content interoperability exactly, just get use cases that *are* in it - basic goals - ..., mappings of ontologies (e.g., catalogues) - features needed - .... - travel scenario use case (from Mike Dean) DanC - a use case is a specific scenario [pfps] i.e., something that could be directly implemented - status - 1/3 done - contact with upper ontology group ** Jeff Heflin - General Requirements - email sent 13 December - General Requirements Subgroup - Progress Report - email discussion resulted in 16 general requirements - six have broad support - shared ontologies - ontology extension - scalability - ease of use - XML syntax - expressiveness - others are under question - unclear, out of scope, too hard - next steps - finalize status - detailed requirements for chosen few Mike Dean - provenance of facts Jeff - general idea of tagging has come up - status - 1/3 + ``a little'' done - less than 1/2 DanC - internationalization? Jeff - character part from XML - different terms from interoperability DanC - political considerations make internationalization important Lynn - use better terms instead of ``internationalization'' various - multlingual support is non-optional DanC - next meeting? - next week - 20th Scribe for next week not yet determine Agenda - cleanup committee status - ... Meeting closed Post-closing notes (from pfps) On reading the above it appears that ACTION (JimH) was to get someone to pull together the four use-case documents into one. Something probably needs to be done on this very soon.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 13:41:09 UTC